Judgment J.C. Verma, J.-This civil Miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the award dated 4.1997 passed in Claim Case No. 57 of 1994 by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hindaun City, whereby the claim of the claimants filed by the widow and the minor daughters of the deceased Lohare had been dismissed. 2. A claim application was filed by the appellants for compensation because of loss sustained by the appellants on the death of Lohare Ram in the accident having taken place on 7.1994 near Hadoli when he was crushed by bus No. RJTJ 5691 driven by Nihal Singh. The deceased was removed to the hospital, but died after few hours of admission. F.I.R. was lodged at Police Station, Suroth. The bus owner was Abid Ali. The bus was insured with respondent No. 3. A challan/charge-sheet was also filed by the police against the driver under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased was 40 years of age. 3. Issues in regard to accident, negligence and compensation and also of the driving licence were framed. The driver did not appear, he was proceeded exparte. However, later on he was allowed to appear on the application of respondent No. 2 and the opportunity of filing of written statement was also given, but subsequently he absented. 4. The claimants have produced Rajanti and Shyam Lal as PWs 1 and 2 along with documentary evidence of 10 documents, i.e., F.I.R., charge-sheet, site plan, postmortem report, seizure memo of the bus, mechanical inspection report of the bus, notice under Section 133, Motor Vehicles Act, panchnama jamabandi, statement made under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code of Shyam Lal. 5. On behalf of respondents only Nihal Singh appeared as DW 1 but his statements were not completed. 6. The Tribunal had held that the claimants have failed to prove the negligence of the driver and, therefore, dismissed the claim application. Being aggrieved the present Miscellaneous appeal has been filed. 7. Record was called for. 8. It wasstated in the claim application that the deceased was a skilled artisan and was earning at the time at the rate of Rs. 2,000 p.m. Compensation because of loss of consortium was also claimed apart from the loss of love and affection, cremation expenses, etc. The insurance company had filed the written statement and had taken the usual defence. It wasstated in the claim application that the deceased was a skilled artisan and was earning at the time at the rate of Rs. 2,000 p.m. Compensation because of loss of consortium was also claimed apart from the loss of love and affection, cremation expenses, etc. The insurance company had filed the written statement and had taken the usual defence. The material details were denied because of lack of knowledge. 9. The driver filed the written statement and generally denied everything stated in the claim application. 10. Rajanti had appeared as witness. She has stated about the income to be Rs. 2,000 and about the death of her husband in the hospital. She has also stated that her husband was cremated in the village and also F.I.R. was written and certain other documents were also produced. In the cross-examination, she had stated his age to be 35 years. 11. Nihal Singh, DW 1, the driver of the bus had totally denied the accident. He had stated that he was definitely challaned by the police, but he had now been acquitted. He has admitted that his bus was seized. However, he has submitted that on 7.1994 he was driving the said bus. He said that he had been unnecessarily locked up by the police after the accident. 12. Exh. 1 was recorded wherein factum of accident had been mentioned. In the said F.I.R. No. 138 of 1994, the police had mentioned the name of the witnesses to be Tikam Chand, Savanta, Premraj, Shyam Lal, Jatansingh, etc., for the purpose of criminal case. Site plan Exh. 2 had also been produced showing the place of accident. Post-mortem report had also been produced where the cause of death has been mentioned as massive internal haemorrhage and as a result of injury to liver (rupture of liver) resulting in shock and death. External injuries have been mentioned to be abrasions, lacerated wound, etc. 13. Bus was seized in the presence of the witnesses on 7.1994 vide Exh. 5. It was got mechanically tested vide Exh. 6. Driving licence of Nihal Singh driver had also been produced along with the insurance cover. External injuries have been mentioned to be abrasions, lacerated wound, etc. 13. Bus was seized in the presence of the witnesses on 7.1994 vide Exh. 5. It was got mechanically tested vide Exh. 6. Driving licence of Nihal Singh driver had also been produced along with the insurance cover. The statement made by Shyam Lal in the criminal case under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code as PW 2 has also been exhibited wherein he had stated that the bus was being driven by Nihal Singh Jat negligently and rashly and had crushed Lohare who was admitted in the hospital and died thereafter. Even though statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the similar effect in regard to other witnesses have been produced, but because of the reason that only Shyam Lal, PW 2, has been produced as witness, statement made by him under Section 161 gathers importance. 14. Counsel for the appellants submits that negligence has been proved from the fact that in the post-mortem report, death of deceased has been proved by way of accident and the seizure of the bus and statement recorded by police in the criminal case of PW 2 clearly shows that the accident had been caused because of negligence of the driver. 15. Counsel for the appellants submits that there can be circumstances when there is no eyewitness available or even if there is any eyewitness, such a witness is not under the control of the claimants as he may not like to come to Court for deposing about the accident and in such circumstances the principle of res ipsa loquitur as enunciated is applicable, for that purpose he relies on a Judgment in the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. 1977 ACJ 343 (SC), wherein it was held that normally it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident speaks for itself or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the vehicle was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happen if those who had the management used proper care. On the circumstances of the case of Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi (supra), it was held that even though there is no direct evidence available, the Tribunal was justified in applying the doctrine and that it was for the opponents to prove that the incident did not take place due to their negligence. 16. Counsel for the Appellants also relies on the Judgment of Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Padmabai v. M.P. State Road Trans. Corporation 2001 ACJ 785 (MP), wherein it was held that the deceased sustained injuries and died, under such circumstances, the burden shifted on respondents to prove that the bus driver was not responsible for accident. Respondents discharged their burden by examining the driver of the offending vehicle. It was observed as under: “We considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for both sides and perused the record. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that on the basis of the maxim res ipsa loquitur, it must be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, is not acceptable. It was observed as under: “We considered the arguments advanced by Counsel for both sides and perused the record. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that on the basis of the maxim res ipsa loquitur, it must be held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus, is not acceptable. Normally, the burden of proving negligence is on the claimants but in some cases it is very difficult for them to prove it as cause of accident is not known to them, it is solely within the knowledge of the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the maxim res ipsa loquitur, which means that the accident tells its own story and under such circumstances, on proving that the deceased died as a result of motor accident, the burden shifts on the respondent to prove that the accident did not happen due to his own negligence.” 17. So far the principle of res ipsa loquitur is concerned, there is no dispute that it is settled principle of law that it is to be made applicable on the facts and circumstances of each case. After going through the site plan and the immediate action taken by the police, even though Nihal Singh, DW 1, is said to have been acquitted in the criminal case, but from the facts & Ors. documents it goes to prove that the deceased had died because of the accident and the accident had been caused by bus in question which was seized by the police. The naked denial of Nihal Singh, DW 1, cannot be believed. Shyam Lal, PW 2, even though had supported the prosecution in the statement under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code in the criminal case, but may be for the reasons not known, he might have changed his mind not to support the appellants. His statement in the Court does not repose any confidence. It cannot be imagined that the appellants would have produced such a witness for proving the factum of accident and negligence if he was not knowing anything at all as deposed by him and, therefore, he was confronted by the statement made by him before the police. In these circumstances, there is merit in the submission of the Counsel for the appellants that the negligence stands proved. In these circumstances, there is merit in the submission of the Counsel for the appellants that the negligence stands proved. Viewing from another angle as well, if it is established that the deceased had died because of the accident and the bus had also been seized by the police in the presence of the witnesses, it was up to the driver of the bus to have explained the circumstances and the situation when the accident had been caused. The bare denial does not show any confidence in the statement of Nihal Singh and as such it is proved that the accident was caused in the manner it has been stated by the police and because of the negligence of the respondent driver of the bus in question. The finding on the relevant issues in this regard are perverse. 18. It has come on evidence that the deceased was working in the mines and was also doing his agriculture work. The deceased’s wife is doing the labour work now. Taking the minimum wages of the labourer during the period as Rs. 36 per day and counting 26 days in a month as working days, the monthly income can easily be fixed in the present case to be Rs. 36 x 26 = Rs. 936 and after deducting 1/3rd for the expenses of the deceased himself , yearly dependency comes to Rs. 624 x 12 = Rs. 7,488. As per the post-mortem report, age of the deceased was 40 years and if multiplier of 15 is applied, the compensation to which the claimants would be entitled is Rs. 7,488 x 15 = Rs. 1,12,320. Apart from above, the widow is entitled to loss of consortium which is fixed as Rs. 10,000 and Rs. 5,000 for each child for loss of love and affection. Another amount is added for cremation in the village to be Rs. 1,000 and by adding another Rs. 1,000 approx. for taking deceased to the hospital & Ors. medical expenses even though for one day only, the total compensation to be assessed is Rs. 1,34,320 which shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application, i.e., 9.1994 till the amount is realised. Out of the amount so realised, it is ordered that 75 per cent of the total amount shall be deposited in the F.D.Rs. 1,34,320 which shall be paid along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing the application, i.e., 9.1994 till the amount is realised. Out of the amount so realised, it is ordered that 75 per cent of the total amount shall be deposited in the F.D.Rs. Out of this 75 per cent of the amount 50 per cent shall be deposited in the F.D.R. in the name of Rajanti, widow of Lohare and 25 per cent each in the name of Raj Kumari and Mathla Devi for a minimum period of two years. The remaining 25 per cent shall be paid in cash to the claimants in the same proportion, i.e., half of 25 per cent to Rajanti, remaining to be paid equally to the two minor children, which amount shall be kept and spent by the mother for the benefit of the children. 19. The appeal is partly accepted as above.