JUDGMENT Om Prakash-VII, J. The First Appeal From Order No.2509 of 2006 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Dri Sudhir Kumar Gupta & Others) has been directed against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.233 of 2002 (Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta Vs. Saleem Ahmad & others) whereby an award of Rs.8,55,000/- along with the simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum has been passed against the appellant-insurance company. 2. The First Appeal From Order No.2510 of 2006 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Versus Dri Sudhir Kumar Gupta & Others) has been directed against the judgment and award dated 29.05.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District & Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Varanasi in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.236 of 2002 (Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta & others Vs. Saleem Ahmad & others) whereby claim petition has been allowed awarding Rs.7,10,000/- along with the simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum against the appellant-insurance company. 3. Since both the aforesaid First Appeal From Orders relate to the same Accident, therefore both the Appeals have been heard together and are being decided together by this common judgment with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2000 at about 6: 30 p.m. the claimant-respondent Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta along with his wife Dr. Neeta Gupta, daughter Km. Tanvi, son Tejas and friend Vimlendu Kumar Singh was going from Varanasi to Meerut via Lucknow on his Maruti Car No.DL-3CC-1754 and when they reached near village Kunwarpur, P.S. Attaria, District Sitapur, on the highway, the driver of the Truck No.UP-21G-9326 driving the truck rashly and negligently came from opposite direction and dashed to the car of the claimant-respondent Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta, resultantly Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta and others sitting in the car received serious injuries. Dr. Neeta Gupta also received serious injuries and she died on the way to hospital. The said incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, which hit the car of the respondent after coming from opposite side. 5. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta received grievous injuries on his body. Dr. Neeta Gupta also received serious injuries and she died on the way to hospital. The said incident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, which hit the car of the respondent after coming from opposite side. 5. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta received grievous injuries on his body. Initially he was treated at Lucknow, but thereafter referred to Sir Sunder Lal Hospital, B.H.U., Varanasi. It is also the case of Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta that treatment was continued and he has spent Rs.5 lacs on the treatment till filing of the claim petition. There is disablement due to injuries in his leg and he does not move conveniently. He has also suffered mental and physical agony. 6. The accident took place when the driver of the offending vehicle overtook the bus rashly and negligently coming on extreme right side of the road. At the time of accident, respondent Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta was aged about 45 years and he was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. All the dependents have been arrayed in the claim petition. 7. The same facts have been narrated in the claim petition no.236 of 2002 mentioned above in which a compensation on account of death of the deceased Dr. Neeta Gupta had been claimed. Dr. Neeta Gupta was aged about 42 years at the time of accident. She was running a nursing home namely Seva Sadan at Shivpur, Varanasi and was earning Rs.1 lac per month. 8. The defendant-appellant insurance company has filed written statement, but the other defendants have not filed written statement despite service before the Tribunal. 9. The appellant insurance company in its written statement has denied in both the cases the averments made in the claim petitions and has disputed the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is also the case of the appellant insurance company that there was contributory negligence on the part of the Car driver. Other defenses available to the appellant insurance company have also been taken in the written statement. 10. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following issues have been framed in claim petition no.233 of 2002 in the Tribunal : 1- D;k fnukad 5-10-2000 bZ0 dks lka; lk Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore the amount awarded in lieu of loss of consortium and love & affection is legal one. 10. On the basis of pleading of the parties, following issues have been framed in claim petition no.233 of 2002 in the Tribunal : 1- D;k fnukad 5-10-2000 bZ0 dks lka; lk Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, therefore the amount awarded in lieu of loss of consortium and love & affection is legal one. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant insurance company in this respect are also not acceptable and have no substance. Therefore, there is no need of any interference in the impugned judgments and orders. We do not find any error or illegality in the impugned awards. 36. For the aforesaid reasons both the First Appeal From Orders, finding no sufficient ground, are hereby dismissed accordingly. 37. Stay order / interim order, if any, stands vacated. 38. The amount, if any, deposited during pendency of the Appeals if still lying in these Appeals be remitted back to the Tribunal for payment to the claimants. 39. Let a copy of this judgment and order be also placed in First Appeal From Order No. 2510 of 2006 (The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Dr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta & Others) 40. No order is passed as to cost.