JUDGMENT :

1. These are a batch of two appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. One appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company bearing F.A.F.O. No.260/2000 being aggrieved against the award dated 29.02.2000 passed in Claim Petition No.176/1997, wherein a sum of Rs.4,34,000/-along with 12% interest has been awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents. The other appeal bearing F.A.F.O. No.283/2000 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the award dated 29.02.2000 and in this view of the matter that both the appeals have been clubbed together and heard and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Since, the Insurance Company has preferred an appeal assailing the award itself, accordingly, first the Court proposes to hear and decide the said appeal and thereafter shall consider the appeal of the claimaints for enhancement if at all any cause subsists subject to the decision of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the instant two appeals are being noticed hereinafter.

4. On 18.11.1996 at around 08:30 PM, Vinod Kumar Misra, who was a Field Officer of the National Insurance Company Limited was returning from his Village to his house in Barabanki. While, he had reached a place called 'Sagar Ka Bagh' in Village Bhayara, an unknown vehicle, whose registration number was revealed later as UP-6882, a Matador, was being driven rashly and negligently and it hit Vinod Kumar, who was on his motorcycle bearing UP-41-6296. On account of the said accident, Vinod Kumar died on the spot and the driver of the offending Matador fled with the vehicle. It is also a case of the claimants that some persons, who had seen the accident had noted the number of the offending vehicle and conveyed the information of the accident to the family of the deceased. The brother of the deceased thereafter on 19.12.1996 got an FIR lodged. It is on account of the death of Vinod Kumar Misra that a Claim Petition No.176/1997 came to be filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki.

5. The claim petition was contested by the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company by filing their written statements. Significantly, the written statement filed by the owner and driver did not dispute the accident but categorically raised a plea that it was the negligence of the motorcyclist which led to his death. It was also pleaded that the Matador was driven carefully and at a reasonable speed and it cannot be said that the Matador was the cause of the accident, apart from the fact that the Matador was duly insured and the driver also possessed a valid licence.

6. On the exchange of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed eight issues and after noticing the evidence, both oral and documentary, returned a finding that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending Matador which caused the death of Vinod Kumar. It also concluded that the vehicle in question was duly insured and the driver had a valid licence.

7. The Tribunal thereafter went ahead to compute the compensation and it noticed that the gross income of the deceased was Rs.9,763/-. However, after taking into consideration various deductions, it arrived at a net income of Rs.6,382/-per month, but it further found that since the wife of the deceased has already been granted compassionate appointment, consequently, for the purpose of assessing loss of income, it finally adopted an amount of Rs.3,600/-per month and thereafter it deducted 1/3 towards personal expenses taking the amount lower to Rs.2,400/-per month. Considering the age of the deceased, it applied a multiplier of 15 and adding a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses awarded a total sum of Rs.4,34,000/-along with 12% interest per annum in favour of the claimants-respondents by means of the award dated 29.02.2000.

8. Mrs.