IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.70 OF 2009 Between: Kamma Molla Rangamma and other …Appellants A n d P.Balanna and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.70 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.10.2008 in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 2007, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (II-Additional District Judge), Adoni, wherein the said application filed by the appellants herein for compensation, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the death of their deceased son Kamma Chinna Sanjeeva, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.02.2007. According to the claimants, who are parents of the deceased, on that day, the deceased and his mother, the first claimant, boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 21 V 9657 at Gooty to go to Pathikonda and on the way near Thuggali village, on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver, the vehicle overturned and the deceased sustained multiple injuries to which he succumbed on the same day. A case in Cr.No.9 of 2007 was registered against the driver of the auto rickshaw. The claimants further pleaded that the deceased was aged 23 years and was working as a coolie earning Rs.200/- per day. 4. The respondents filed counters opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 6. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the application on the ground that the involvement of the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 21 V 9657 has not been established by the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present appeal. 7. P.W.1, the first claimant, was also travelling in the auto along with the deceased at the time of the accident. The F.I.R-Ex.A1 in Cr.No.9 of 2007 was registered based on the complaint given by P.W.1. No doubt, in Ex.A-1 F.I.R, it is stated that the auto number and driver’s name are not known. It is to be noted that after due investigation, the police identified the crime vehicle as auto bearing No.AP 21 V 9657 and filed a charge sheet- Ex.A-5 against the driver of the auto and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.37 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pathikonda. The fact that the criminal case ended in acquittal under the judgment-Ex.B-4 is of no consequence. Ex.A-3 the inquest report also shows that the apparent cause of death of the deceased was the injuries sustained in the accident. The registration number of the auto i.e., AP 21 V 9657 is also noted in Ex.A-3. The inquest was held on 08.02.2007 i.e., on the very next day of the accident. It shows that within 24 hours of registration of F.I.R., the police identified the crime vehicle and noted its particulars, including the registration number. Ex.A-4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, which shows that the crime vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 24.02.2007. Subsequently, the driver was also prosecuted vide charge sheet Ex.A-5 which was filed on 06.03.2007. The criminal court record under Exs.A-1 to A- 5 would, therefore, clearly establish that it was the auto bearing registration No.AP 21 V 9657 that was involved in the accident. Simply because the prosecution against the driver ended in acquittal, which circumstance is no consequence insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, the claim of the appellants for compensation cannot be defeated, that too on the ground that the identity of the crime vehicle is not established. 8. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are examined to prove the accident, no doubt did not support the prosecution case during the trial in C.C.No.37 of 2007. Even if their evidence is to be ignored on the ground that they gave contradictory versions in C.C.No.37 of 2007 and the present enquiry, still the other evidence available on record particularly Exs.A-1 to A-5 established the case of the appellants that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. Just because P.Ws.2 and 3 gave different versions in their evidence before the Tribunal contrary to what they have deposed in C.C.No.37 of 2007, it cannot be said that the identity of the vehicle itself is not established. The testimony of P.W.1, who was also travelling in the same vehicle, cannot be rejected on the ground that she has not disclosed the particulars of the auto and its driver in the complaint. It is well settled that the F.I.R need not disclose all the details and the complaint is meant only to set the criminal law into motion. Within hours after the registration of the F.I.R, the crime vehicle was identified. It is, therefore, not a case where there is any possibility of false implication of the vehicle on account of any collusion. P.W.1, an illiterate village woman, cannot be expected to note down the details of the auto and its driver in the aftermath of the accident, when she herself sustained injuries and her son suffered major injuries, which proved fatal. The approach of the Tribunal in the matter of appreciation of evidence and recording the finding that identity and involvement of the vehicle are not established, is erroneous. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2007 and also the fact that the claimants are poor villagers, it is considered unjust and inappropriate to remand the matter to the Tribunal for the purpose of assessing the compensation payable. The evidence on record shows that the deceased was aged 23 years and was unmarried and doing coolie work. As the deceased died unmarried, the age of mother of the 1st claimant has to be taken into consideration. The 1st claimant is aged 55 years and hence the appropriate multiplier as per decision in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], would be ‘11’. As the deceased was a daily wage earner, going for coolie work, his income can be reasonably estimated at Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting one-half (50%) thereof towards personal expenses, his contribution to the family can be estimated at Rs.1,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘11’ the loss of dependency works out to Rs.1,98,000/-. The claimants are also held entitled for Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The claimants are, therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,02,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. It is not disputed that the auto bearing No. AP 21 V 9657 belonged to the 1st respondent and the same is insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force by the date of the accident. Hence, respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation to the claimants. They are directed to deposit the said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The impugned order, dismissing the claim application is, therefore, set aside. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th August, 2011 Lrkm [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121