JUDGMENT

Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.

Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Anand Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company and perused the judgment and order impugned.

2. Both these appeals challenges the judgment and award dated 31.8.1998 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/VII Additional District Judge, Etawah in M.A.C. No. 353 of 1994 (Sushma Devi and another v. Om Prakash Gupta and others) & M.A.C. No.354 of 1994 (Rameshwari Devi and others v. Om Prakash Gupta and others).

3. F.A.F.O. No.1287 of 1998 has been filed against the Claim Petition No. 353 of 1998 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,35,000/- to the respondent-claimants with interest at the rate of 12%. F.A.F.O. No. 1178 of 1998 has been filed against claim petition No. 354 of 1993 which was dismissed in terms of amount awarded under no fault liability.

4. A very fanciful argument in the rejoinder has been raised by Sri R.K. Porwal which is only raised for being rejected outright. The claim petition was under Section 140 & 166 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . It is submitted by Sri Porwal that the claim petition should be considered under Section 163A of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT by this Court and the liability should be fasten on the National Insurance Co. Ltd. namely the insurer of the motorcycle on which the deceased were travelling though the driver of motorcycle is held to have not contributed to accident having taken place.

5. This fanciful argument is made because by learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sinha, learned counsel for Insurance Company supported the judgment of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the driver of bus was negligent and granted recovery right from the owner and driver of the bus as the vehicle seems to be uninsured or rather the owner and driver did not give the details of Insurance policy of bus.

6. This takes this Court to the aspect of compensation as that is the sole aspect which requires to be considered. It was contended by Sri Porwal that the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition being Claim Petition No. 354 of 1993 preferred by widow of one of the deceased. The Tribunal with due respect to Sri Porwal had not dismissed the claim petition rather it has over zealously granted amount of no fault liability to the widow of the deceased who as per the postmortem report was 75 years of age. The submission of Sri Sinha, learned counsel for Insurance Company is that the amount under no fault liability which has already been paid is rightly paid as just compensation. Sri Sinha has submitted that impugned order cannot be found fault with as the deceased was above 70 years, the Tribunal considered his income to be Rs. 10,000/- per annum and applied multiplier of 5. It is submitted that for no fault liability, the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount in claim petition filed under section 140 of MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988.

7. However, Rs. 20,000/- under the head of non pecuniary damage to widow-Rameshwari Devi would be payable with interest as directed herein below. The claimant being non tortfeasor can collect the amount from any of the tortfeasors.

8. This takes this Court to First Appeal From Order No. 1287 of 1998 preferred against Claim Petition No. 353 of 1993. A young man of 25 years breathed his last when he was a trained Junior Engineer. The Tribunal has considered his income to be Rs. 15,000/- per year and granted multiplier of 18 after considering that Rs. 750/- would be the datum figure. The Tribunal has granted only Rs. 7000/- towards non pecuniary damages and has not granted any amount under f