THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.816 of 1997 JUDGMENT: The appellants filed O.P.No.293 of 1993 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, claiming a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-, as compensation, on account of the death of T.Ramakrishna Reddy, son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of respondents 3 to 5. It was pleaded that on 24.10.1992, Ramakrishna Reddy was proceeding on a scooter, at Balanagar, Hyderabad and a lorry bearing No. AAT 3093, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent, dashed against the scooter from behind, resulting in instantaneous death. They pleaded that the deceased was employed as an Accountant in a private firm, namely Sarca Laboratories Limited, was being paid Rs.3,200/-, per month, and was aged 22 years at the time of his death. According to them, the accident occurred on account of rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent alone contested the O.P. It has disputed the involvement of the lorry in the accident and the allegation as to rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was also pleaded that the amount claimed by the appellants is excessive and without any basis. The contention that the deceased did not hold valid driving licence was also raised. Through order, dated 31.12.1996, the Tribunal held that the appellants failed to prove that the accident occurred, on account of the rashness on the part of driver of the lorry, but awarded compensation, of Rs.50,000/-, under ‘no fault liability’. The amount was apportioned among the appellants. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking enhancement of the compensation. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The appeal against respondents 1 and 2 was dismissed for default, on account of the non-payment of batta for second time. However, in view of the fact that they remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the dismissal of O.P., against them, does not have any impact on it. On behalf of the appellants, the 5th appellant herein is deposed as PW.1. The documentary evidence comprised of Exs.A.1 to A.4 viz., FIR, Charge sheet, post-mortem examination report and salary certificate. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the appellants failed to prove that the accident occurred on account of rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. It may be true that PW.1 was not an eye-witness to the accident. All the same, the very registration of a crime and filing of a charge-sheet against the driver of the lorry alleging rashness on his part, is sufficient to hold that the accident occurred on account of his negligence. The only basis for the Tribunal to record its finding was that the appellants did not examine any eye- witness to prove that the lorry was driving in a rash and negligent manner. Another observation was that no documents, such as judgment in the criminal case, were filed. The approach of the Tribunal is totally erroneous. One cannot expect eye-witnesses to speak about the accidents. It is common that on the high-way, even if the accident occurs in a busy locality, there would be no one, to identify a witness, particularly in cases where victim of the accident died. By the time, the kin of the deceased come to the spot, there will be complete change of the scenario. The police is the best agency to conduct investigation and point out as to who was responsible for the accident. After conducting investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet in the case. Booking of the criminal case, registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet against the driver of a vehicle on account of the accident, are the best available evidence. Even when a case is registered, the driver, who is accused of being rash and negligent, can disprove it with cogent evidence. In the instant case, neither the driver, nor the owner of the vehicle, much less the insurer, have made an endeavour in that direction. The fact that the deceased died in an accident is evident from Ex.A.3, the post- mortem report, and the cause of the accident can be culled out from the FIR-Ex.A.1 and charge-sheet – Ex.A.2. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred, on account of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry, bearing No. AAT 3093. Even after holding that the appellants failed to prove that the accident occurred due to the rashness of driver of the lorry, the Tribunal proceeded to undertake an half-hearted and imperfect discussion about the compensation. The plea of the appellants was that the deceased was being paid salary of Rs.3,200/- per month. Ex.A.4 was filed in support thereof. The Tribunal could have expressed its own view as to the income of the deceased, if only it was inclined to award compensation by applying the relevant parameters. Even while holding that the police failed to prove the cause of the death, as alleged by them, the Tribunal slashed down the income of the deceased to Rs.2,000/- per month. It was also observed that he would have contributed to the family, but held that the appellants failed to establish their case. All the same, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded under ‘no fault liability’. Here again, the approach of the Tribunal was untenable. The income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.2,000/- per month. His age was 22 years, when he died. Since he was unmarried, 50% of the income deserves to be deducted, particularly when his elder brothers - respondents 3 to 5 cannot be said to be dependants upon him. Hence, the loss of contribution to the family, on account of the death of the deceased, would be Rs.12,000/- per year. The multiplier applicable for a person of 22 years is “18”, as per the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1]. A sum of Rs.15,000/- deserves to be awarded under various heads, such as loss of estate, funeral expenses etc. The total compensation would be Rs.2,31,000/-. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the compensation enhanced to Rs.2,31,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 9% and appellants 1 and 2 shall alone be entitled to receive it in equal shares. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.12.2011 GJ [1] 2009 ACJ 1298