JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Rishi Kant Rai, learned counsel appearing for the original claimants; Shri Nishant Mehrotra, learned counsel for the Insurance company; none appeared for the owner. Perused the record

2. These appeals are preferred both by claimants and also by Insurance company, F.A.F.O. No.2356 of 2013 is at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and decree dated 14.05.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Mau (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.195 of 2010 awarding a sum of Rs.4,64,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% as compensation.

3. F.A.F.O. No.2391 of 2013 is preferred by Insurance company challenging the award on following grounds;

(a) It is challenged that the award is bad as the tribunal has erred on facts. It is alleged that the accident did not involve, the vehicle insured namely Tata Mazic bearing Registration No. UP 54 D 2561.

(b) It is further submitted that the death of Subhash Chandra was not due to the accidental injuries and the driver of Tata Magic was not driving the vehicle negligently;

(c) It is submitted that the driver driving, Tata Magic was not having proper driving licence