DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Suresh Panjwani, learned counsel for the ap­pellant and Sri Deepak Kumar Agarwal for opposite parties Nos. 1 to 5.
(2.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal against the impugned award dated 28-1-2006 passed in claim petition No. 163 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addi­tional District Judge, Court No.1, Lucknow. In brief, Rajendra Prasad Pandey, aged about 40 years, was employed as Trainer-So­cial Worker in Gram Samaj Jan Kalyan Sewa Sansthan, Shivdinpur Post Kodaria, District Sitapur. While coming to his residence at vil­lage Sariya Isaganj, P.S. Sandana, district Sitapur on riding on Vikram Tempo No. U.P.-32- AN 7349, he succumbed to injuries on account of accident caused by the tempo driver who lost his control on his stealing. Though he was brought to K.G.M.C. College, Lucknow but could not survive and died on 2-7-2004. An F.I.R. was lodged. Later on, the claimants Smt. Lalita Pandey aged about 38 years wife of Late Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Sri Ram Chandra Pandey aged about 72 years and Smt Ram Dulari Pandey aged about 68 years, who are father and mother of the de­ceased, Master Om Pandey aged about 17 years and Master Ajai Pandey aged about 11 years, the sons of the deceased have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.
(3.) ACCORDING to the claimants, the deceased was post graduate and was employed as Trainer -Social Workers in Gram Samaj Jan Kalyan Sewa Sansthan, Sitapur and his monthly salary was Rs.3000/- per month and other source of income of the deceased from tuition is about Rs. 2000/- (lump sum). Thus the total monthly income of the deceased is said to be Rs. 5000/- per month. Before the Tribunal P.W. 1 Smt. Lalita Pandey and P. W.2 Shyam Behari are the witnesses out of which Shyam Behari is an eye witness, who stated that he has seen the vehicle which was com­ing from Sidhauli to Sandana being driven by the driver rashly and negligently and met an accident." With the help of some passers-by, he had taken out the deceased from the tempo and provided necessary assistance to other injured. No evidence has been led by the appellant-respondent to rebut the allega­tions on record.;