SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the claimants and is directed against the judgment and award dated 27th day of January 1977 passed by the Claims Tribunal, N. K. Karwar, in Misc. Case No. 22 of 1974, on ts file. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the first claimant, jubeda, that her husband Moulasab hussainsab was attending to the 'kamal' work of the society at Kansoor mostly with regard to their truck bearing No. MYE 3661, that on 15-3-74 at about 10-30 P. M. he went in the truck for loading paddy bags to be brought into the truck from Chavati co-operative Society and when the truck left Chavati after the bags were loaded and was on its way to Sirsi, the truck turned turtle at about 10. 30 P. M. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver as a result of which the hamal, namely, Moulasab who was travelling in the truck sustained serious injuries to the ribs and was admitted to the hospital at Sirsi on the same day. There, Moulasab died on 5-4-1974, According to the claimants, since pneumonia with which he was suffering aggravated due to the injuries sustained in the accident and proved fatal. They claimed compensation of rs. 92,000 for the death of Moulasab who was the bread-winner of the family. The claimants are his widow and his two children Bibi Aisha, aged 6 yeas, and Abdulmajid aged 4 years. The claim was resisted by the respondents, who are the owner, the driver and the insurer of the lorry in question, according to them, the death of moulasab was not due to the injury sustained in the accident. Hence, the petition was not tenable. Secondly, moulasab never travelled as an employee under the Society which owns the truck. He was a gratuitous passenger, if at all, and hence neither the owner nor the insurer was liable to pay compensation. Thirdly, they contended that the petition wap not maintainable as they had to seek relief under the Workmens' Compensation act, if at all Lastly, according to them, the compensation claimed was exorbitant. On these, the Tribunal raised the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident in question was the result of rash or negligent driving on the part of opponent No. 2 ? 2. On these, the Tribunal raised the following issues: 1. Whether the petitioners prove that the accident in question was the result of rash or negligent driving on the part of opponent No. 2 ? 2. Whether the petitioners prove that Moulasab Husseinsab died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question? 3. What compensation, if any, the petitioners are entitled to and from which of the opponents ? ( 3 ) DURING the enquiry, the petitioners examined P W. 1, Jubeda, the widow of the deceased, P. W. 2 Vishwanat, an agriculturist, and Panch witness and p. W. 3 Laxman the doctor, who conducted the, post-mortem examination. As against that the respondents examined the Secretary of the Co-operative society, Govind as R. W. 1 and the driver of the lorry in question as R. W. 2. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held under issue No. 1 in the affirmitive, under issue Nos. 2 and 3 the Tribunal held in the negative and in that view the Tribunal dismissed the claim application of the l. Rs. of the deceased. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, they have come up in appeal before this court. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel, Sri K. V. Jayaprakash, appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application for compensation having held that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry. He further submitted that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the death was not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. According to him, moulasab wa. s travelling in the lorry being an employee as Hamal of the owner of the lorry and as such he was entitled for compensation. He submitted that Moulasab was earning nearly Rs. 300 per month, and the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation on that basis. As against that the learned counsel, Sri R. Narayan, and Shri hegde appearing for the respondents argued supporting the judgment and award of the Tribunal. The points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the death of Moulasab was not due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident? 2. The points, therefore, that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that the death of Moulasab was not due to the injuries sustained in the motor accident? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that moulasab was not travelling as an employee under the owner of the truck. ? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and if so to what amount? ( 5 ) THE learned Tribunal has held that moulasab did not die as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident, but as a result of pneumonia. The Tribunal relied on the evidence of the doctor P. W. 3. He has no doubt stated that "the cause of death is as a result of respiratory failure probably due to pneumonitis with consolidation of left iurig". He has also stated that the injuries sustained in the accident were not fatal. But, he has further stated "the injuries noticed by me will enhance pneumonia if it is there at the time the injuries were sustained or acquired subsequently". In the cross-examination he has stated: "the deceased was suffering from pneumonia, when he was first admitted as an inpatient for treatment of the injuries". Thus, his evidence makes it clear that at the time when the injured Moulasab was admitted, he was already suffering from pneumonia. He has further stajted that if such a person received injuries which Moulasab received that would aggravate pneumonia and would be the cause of death. He has also stated giving the cause of death specifically that the death was due to pneumonitis with consolidation of left lung due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Thus, reading his evidence as a whole, it becomes obvious that the death was due to the injuries sustained in the accident as they aggravated pneumonia which proved fatal. ( 6 ) IN this connection, it is true that if there is any intervention in the chain reaction after the happening of the accident and the death, then there will be a break in the chain of causation and it cannot be said that the death is due to the injuries sustained in the accident. ( 6 ) IN this connection, it is true that if there is any intervention in the chain reaction after the happening of the accident and the death, then there will be a break in the chain of causation and it cannot be said that the death is due to the injuries sustained in the accident. But if there is no intervening factor at all, in between the accident and the death, then it should normally be presumed that the death is due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Bingham's Motor claims Cases, 7th Edition 1973 at page 493, deals with Novus Actus Inter- veniens and he observes quoting Lord wright thus:"to break the chain of causation it must be shown that there is something which, I will call ultraneous, something unwarrantable, a new cause which disturbs the sequence of events, something which can be described as either unreasonable or extraneous or extrinsic. I doubt whether the law can be stated more precisely than that (per Lord wright, in the Oropesa (1943) 1 All e. R. 211)"in the casei of Isitt v. Railway Passengers Assurance Co. , (1889) 22 QBD 504. , quoted in bingham's Motor Claims Cases at page 493:"the assured, under a policy granted by the defendant company against "death from the effects of injury caused by accident", fell and dislocated his shoulder. He was at once put to bed and died in less than. a month from the date of the accident, having been all the time confined to his bedroom. In a case stated in a reference under defendant's special Act the umpire found that the assured died from pneumonia caused by cold, but that he would not have died as and when he did had it not been for the accident; that as a consequence of the accident, he suffered from pain and was rendered restless, unable to wear his clothing, weak and unusually susceptible to cold, and that his catching cold and the fatal effects of the cold were both due to the condition of health to which he had been reduced by the accident". It was held in that case: "the death of the assured was due to the "effects of injury caused by the accident" within the meaning of the Policy". It was held in that case: "the death of the assured was due to the "effects of injury caused by the accident" within the meaning of the Policy". ( 7 ) THUS, it is obvious that the aggravation of pneumonia was entirely due to the, condition of health to which the victim was reduced as a result of the accident, especially so, when we look to the description of the injuries given by Dr. Laxman, P. W. 3. He has deposed that as a result of accident the victim suffered the following injuries: - (i) a wound in the 3rd web spaee of left hend, granulation tissue was present. (ii) bedsore- (iii) Fracture of manibrium sternie. (iv) there were 3 rib fractures 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs on left side were fractured 3" away from the costochondral junction. (v) lower lobe of left lung was markedly congested and black. (vi) Right lung was mildly congested and froth was present". Thus, it is obvious that the injuries sus-tained were mostly regarding the lungs and the ribs and it is in the evidence of the doctor that he was already having pneumonia and it is so obvious that these injuries and the state of his health aggravated pneumonia making it fatal 4s in the case cifed above. Thus, we have no hesitation to say that the death was mainly as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident. ( 8 ) IT is settled law that a wrong doer must take his victim Talem qualem, which means that the wrong doer must take his victim as he finds him. (per lord Parker CJ. in (1961) 3 All. E. R. 1161 ). In this case the statement of the doctor is that Moulsab was suffering from pneumonia and it is to this victim of penumonia that injuries were inflicted in the accident which in the normal course of events aggravated and resulted in the death of Moulasab. Without more, therefore, it is so obvious that the death was due to the injuries sustained by Moulasab as a result of accident. The Tribunal has entirely missed this aspect. Without more, therefore, it is so obvious that the death was due to the injuries sustained by Moulasab as a result of accident. The Tribunal has entirely missed this aspect. ( 9 ) ADVERTING to the other point, namely, whether Moulasab was travelling in the lorry as an employee under the owner, we, have to consider the evidence of his widow, Jubeda P. W. 1, who has sworn that Moulasab was going for work in the society and that he was a hamali in the truck. To substantiate her statement she has produced a letter received by Moulasab, marked as Ext- P. 1. That letter is dated 5-2-1974; it bears the seal of the society and the signature by a person calling himself as 'motor agent'. That contains instructions to moulasab as to how he should behave in the truck in. question. It states: x x x that clearly establishes that Moulasab was regularly working as* hamali in the truck in question. It may be mentioned in this context that when she referred to the letter received from the society it was exhibited without demur. Besides strict rules of Evidence Act would not apply, to the proceedings before the claims Tribunal as before any other Tribunal. (Salamma v. K. V. Ramachandra, ILR 1973 Kar. 339. It is true that R. W. 1 Govind Hegde the Secretary of the Society has sworn that the deceased was not a 'hamali' under the Society. He is bound to say so; because. he is interested in the society. The society did not object to the marking of Ext- P-1 in the evidence of P. W. 1. Hence, the statement of the secretary is obviously an after thought. It is in evidence that the truck was taken to Chavati for the purpose of loading bags of paddy. Hence, it is quite probable that the deceased hamali was also taken in the truck. Taking an overall picture of the evidence on record, we have no hesitation to hold that Moulasab was an employee under the Society working in the truck as hamali and that he travelled in, the truck in that capacity, at the relevant time. We will next advert to the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The first claimant is the widow. The second and third claimants are the minor children of Moulasab. We will next advert to the quantum of compensation to which the claimants are entitled. The first claimant is the widow. The second and third claimants are the minor children of Moulasab. It is in the evidence of P. W. 1 that her husband was giving Rs. 200-250 per month for the family expenses. It is obvious that the widow is interested in getting as much compensation as possible and it is always probable that she would exaggerate the income. It is in evidence that he was working as a hamali in the Society. Having regard to the common knowledge, it is probable that he was earning about rs. 8 per day, on an average which gives him Rs. 240 per month. Out of this he had to maintain himself and his family. 1/3rd of this ha,s to be deducted towards his personal expenses which gives the balance of Rs. 160 which could be spent for the benefit of the members of his family. Therefore, the total loss of annual dependency would be Rs, 1920. His age is held to be 35 years by the Tribunal. We, have no reason to differ. Hence, taking the multiplier as 10, having regard to the current rate of interest on fixed deposit we get the total loss of dependency at rs. 19,200/- To this has to be added rs. 5000/- as a conventional figure awarded for loss of future happy life of the deceased. We will also deem it just and proper to award Rs- 2000 towards loss of consortium to the first claimant. It is not necessary to award for pain and suffering again because we have awarded Rs. 19,200 in lumpsum for loss of dependency. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 26,000. Out of this amount awarded each of the claimants is given 1/3rd of of the total amount awarded towards compensation. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award of the Tribunal are set aside for reasons discussed above. The claim for compensation is allowed. The claimants are awarded Rs. 26,000 and each of the claimant shall receive 1/3rd of the same. The total amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till payment. The judgment and award of the Tribunal are set aside for reasons discussed above. The claim for compensation is allowed. The claimants are awarded Rs. 26,000 and each of the claimant shall receive 1/3rd of the same. The total amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of application till payment. Out of this total amount the third respondent Insurance Company shall pay under S. 95 (2) (a) of the Motor vehicles Act, the quantum that the insurance Company is liable to pay as contemplated under the Workmen's compensation Act in regard to the death of an employee. As it was prevailing then under the Workmen's compensation Act, the compensation to be awarded to an employee earning more than Rs. 200 but not more than rs. 300 is Rs. 8000. Hence, we direct that the third respondent Insurance company shall pay to the claimant Rs. 8000 and that the claimants shall receive the same in equal proportion i. e. , 1/3rd "each. The Insurance Company shall also pay the costs of this proceeding throughout to the first claimant. The rest of the amount of compensation awarded shall be paid over by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents shall bear their own costs. The compensation awarded in favour of the minors on realisation, shall be deposited in a scheduled bank in the name of the minors till they attain the age of majority. The mother and guardian-the first claimant is at liberty to withdraw the interest on the fixed deposit and spend the same for the benefit of the minors. --- *** --- .