Judgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. This is a claimants appeal and has been directed against the award dated 8.9.1993, passed by the court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, chandigarh, who, dismissed the claim petition of the appellants under sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, vide which, the claimants had made a prayer that a sum of rs.20,00,000 may be awarded to them by way of compensation on account of the death of Jasbir Singh, son of Sewak Singh. 2. The brief facts of the case are that parminder Malik, widow of Jasbir Singh, minor daughters Jasmin, aged 15 years and Amita, aged 12 years, filed a claim petition under sec. 166 of the Motor vehicles Act against New India Assurance co. Ltd. , Jaspal Singh and Tara Singh, driver and owner of the offending car No. CH 01-D 0967 and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000 by way of compensation and it was averred by the claimants that Jasbir Singh was doing a transport business and he was earning rs.13,000 per month. On 1.11.1991, at about 10 p. m. Jasbir Singh was coming on his scooter bearing registration No. CHQ 9744 at Chandigarh-Ambala Road and when he reached near the workshop of p. R. T. C. in Industrial Area, Phase II, the offending car No. CH 01-D 0967 came from behind at a fast speed. The car was being driven in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the car did not blow the horn and hit the car against the scooter from behind and caused injuries to Jasbir singh. After hitting the scooter, the car hit the cyclist who was going ahead of scooter. Jasbir Singh sustained injuries. He was removed to the hospital in a police vehicle and he died on 3.11.1991. The claimants alleged that this accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the car. 3. Notice of the claim petition was given to the respondents. Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex pane. Respondent nos.2 and 3 filed a joint written statement. They admitted the accident in question and it was pleaded that the accident took place when the car was likely to overtake the scooterist all of a sudden. Scooterist lost balance and came in front of the car and suffered injuries. Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex pane. Respondent nos.2 and 3 filed a joint written statement. They admitted the accident in question and it was pleaded that the accident took place when the car was likely to overtake the scooterist all of a sudden. Scooterist lost balance and came in front of the car and suffered injuries. The respondents denied that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. 4. From the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 driver of car No. CH 01-D 0967? OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the claimants were entitled and from whom? OPR (3) Relief. 5. After recording the statements of the three witnesses, respondent No.1, moved an application for setting aside the ex pane proceedings. The application was allowed and in this manner, respondent No.1 was allowed to join the proceedings. It filed the written statement and denied all the averments of the claimants except for admission of the policy of the car. Insurance company also took the stand that no accident took place as the answering respondent never received information about the alleged accident. Further it was pleaded by the insurance company that the driver of the car did not have a valid driving licence. 6. Additional issue was also framed in this case which was treated as issue No.1a. This issue was to the following effect: whether any accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2? OPP 7. Parties were given the opportunities to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings the Tribunal decided issue nos.1 and 1-A against the claimants and in favour of the respondents. Issue No.2 was also decided against the claimants and finally the claim petition was dismissed. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the present appeal. 9. I have heard Mrs. Naveen Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and with her assistance have gone through the record of the case and in my opinion, the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim petition. 10. 8. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the present appeal. 9. I have heard Mrs. Naveen Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and with her assistance have gone through the record of the case and in my opinion, the Tribunal was not right in rejecting the claim petition. 10. First of all, I would like to take up issue Nos.1 and 1-A. The Tribunal has decided these issues against the claimants for the reasons given in para 15 of the award, which are as under: " (15) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the claimant has miserably failed to prove the accident in question for the following reasons: (a) The testimony of AW 1 Satwinder singh is not to be taken into account as he has nowhere disclosed the registration number of the Maruti car and its driver, (b) This witness is alleged to have followed the deceased at 7.30 p. m. near Tribune Chowk whereas the accident took place at 10 p. m. The testimony of this witness does not inspire confidence in view of the observations made in the Haryana Milk Foods case, 1985 acj 269 (Pandh), where the evidentiary value of the eyewitness and a chance witness has been described. This witness has admitted having known the deceased on the date of accident. He neither informed his family members nor accompanied the injured to the hospital and report the matter to the police. Thus, it is unsafe to rely on the testimony of this witness, (c) The claimant has further failed to prove on the record that car No. CH 01-D 0967 was owned by respondent No.3 Tara Singh at the time of accident and the same was being driven by respondent No.2 at the relevant time, (d) Claimant further failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti car. If the claimant had learnt about the registration number of the car and name of its driver, the criminal case investigated by one Bhajan Singh, Sub inspector would not have ended as untraced. There was every likelihood of the claimant to have approached the police for the criminal proceedings to be initiated against the driver of the offending car. If the claimant had learnt about the registration number of the car and name of its driver, the criminal case investigated by one Bhajan Singh, Sub inspector would not have ended as untraced. There was every likelihood of the claimant to have approached the police for the criminal proceedings to be initiated against the driver of the offending car. (e) The maxim of res ipsa loquitur is not attracted to the facts of the present case as none of the witnesses on behalf of the claimant has named jaspal Singh as driver of the Maruti car having caused this accident. " 11. In order to examine whether the findings of the Tribunal are correct or not, i will have to again assess the evidence. First of all, I would like to refer to the written statement of respondent Nos.2 and 3. It may also be mentioned that the written statement was neither signed nor verified by the driver or by the owner. It is only signed by the lawyer. As per the requirement of the law, the written statement ought to have been signed and verified by the client. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that a lawyer can file the written statement on the instructions of his client, still, this document is very material for the adjudication of this issue. It is the specific case of the claimants that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent act of respondent No.2. Let us see the stand of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the written statement. Para 8 of the written statement dated 9.10.1992 is very material. It runs as follows: "the driver of the scooter No. CHQ 9744 was going ahead of the car on the relevant date and time. The car was approaching the roundabout which is known as Tribune Chowk. The road on which the car was going is having enough width and usual speed thereon can be 50 to 60 kmph. The scooter was going at a speed of about 30 to 35 kmph and on its correct side. However, when the car was likely to overtake the scooterist he all of a sudden lost balance, came in front of the car and as such hit by the car, the scooterist suffered some injuries because of such an accident. The scooter was going at a speed of about 30 to 35 kmph and on its correct side. However, when the car was likely to overtake the scooterist he all of a sudden lost balance, came in front of the car and as such hit by the car, the scooterist suffered some injuries because of such an accident. It is clear from these facts that at least car driver respondent was not at all having any fault. " 12. Thus, from this stand of respondent Nos.2 and 3, conveyed to the Tribunal through the lawyer, it clearly spells out that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the car. The width of the road was quite enough. When a driver of a vehicle was to overtake the other vehicle on a road which has enough width, he is supposed to overtake the other vehicle by giving a sufficient margin so that both the vehicles may not come in contact with each other. It is also admitted case of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 that at that time the speed of the scooter was hardly 30 to 35 kmph. There was hardly any occasion for losing the balance of the scooter in such a situation. Rather an irresistible conclusion is that the driver of the car lost the control and it dashed against the scooter. 13. Now, let us examine the statements of the witnesses Satwinder Singh appeared as PW 1. According to this witness, he knew Jasbir Singh deceased. On the date of accident he was coming from village hallo Majra and was proceeding towards sector 43. At about 7.30 p. m. Jasbir Singh was going ahead of him on a scooter. When he reached near the Tribune Chowk, he saw that a Maruti car was following him and Jasbir Singh, the driver of the car hit the scooter from behind and due to the impact Jasbir Singh fell on the road. It is further in the statement of Satwinder Singh that the scooter was going on the correct side of the road. Also it is stated by this witness that Maruti car was being driven at a speed of 50 to 60 kmph. It is further in the statement of Satwinder Singh that the scooter was going on the correct side of the road. Also it is stated by this witness that Maruti car was being driven at a speed of 50 to 60 kmph. Thus, from the statement of Satwinder Singh, it stands abundantly proved that the accident took place in a different manner when the driver of the car hit the scooter from behind and this act itself is an act of negligence. The statement of this witness has been disbelieved for uncogent reasons. The Tribunal ought to have seen that this witness is not related in any manner with the family of the deceased. If the witness has fumbled on some aspects such as that he did not lodge the report, it is no ground to reject his testimony. This witness was not related to the deceased and we have seen in experience that people did witness the accident but at that time they do not bother to accompany the injured to the hospital or they do not go to the police station for lodging the report. So much so they do not go even to the house of the injured to inform their relations about the accident. In my opinion hardly any evidence was required in this case to prove the negligence aspect of the case when the negligence is discernible from the defence of respondent nos.2 and 3 but unfortunately for the claimants there is a statement of Satwinder singh which has been disbelieved by the tribunal on unconvincing reasons. Therefore, I reverse the finding of the Tribunal on issue Nos.1 and 1-A and hold that the accident had taken place due to negligence of respondent No.2. 14. The case set up by the claimants in the trial court was that deceased was doing the business of a transporter. He was earning Rs.13,000 per month. He was aged 41 years. On account of the demise of Jasbir singh, the transport business had to be closed down and as such the claimants suffered loss in this behalf in addition to the loss of monthly regular income. Parminder kaur, widow of the deceased, appeared as pw 2. She stated that her husband died in a vehicular accident. He was aged 41 years at the time of his death. He was healthy. Parminder kaur, widow of the deceased, appeared as pw 2. She stated that her husband died in a vehicular accident. He was aged 41 years at the time of his death. He was healthy. He was running the transport business under the name of Eagle Transport Co. Her husband had five vehicles and was earning rs.15,000 to Rs.16,000 per month and the deceased used to pay Rs.12,000 for running the household affairs. It has also come in her statement that after the death of her husband, the trucks had been sold as she was unable to carry on the business of the transport. Her husband was a income tax assessee. She produced income tax statement, Exh. P-2. It has also come in the statement of the lady that her husband used to file income tax return, through income tax adviser/consultant. In cross-examination, she stated that their manager P. K. Tripathi used to maintain the written account in respect of the business. She stated that she sold the truck of her husband bearing registration No. CHW 6944 to Somi. It was 87 model and was sold for a sum of rs.2,00,000. The said truck was purchased after raising a loan from Canara Bank and the loan was cleared at the time of the sale. The second truck bearing registration No. CH 01-8344 was sold to Prem Kumar for a sum of Rs.1,75,000. The model of the truck, was of 1990. This truck was also purchased with the assistance of a financier. Further, it has come in the statement of the lady that she is in possession of two truck Nos. CH 01-8544 and CH 01-9244. She does not know the number of the fifth truck but it was sold for a sum of rs.70,000. Also it has been stated by the lady that she is earning Rs.3,700 as salary per month. Thus, it is evident that there were five trucks in Eagle Transport Co. Three were sold by lady and two trucks were kept by her. PW 3 P. K. Tripathi, deposed that Jasbir Singh deceased used to work as a transporter. He further stated that he used to maintain the account of the transporter. He used to pay the salaries to the employees. Three were sold by lady and two trucks were kept by her. PW 3 P. K. Tripathi, deposed that Jasbir Singh deceased used to work as a transporter. He further stated that he used to maintain the account of the transporter. He used to pay the salaries to the employees. Further, it has come in the statement of Tripathi that there were five trucks in the company at the time of the death of Jasbir Singh and after his death, three trucks were sold. Also it has come in the statement of this witness that deceased was earning Rs.15,000 per month after deducting all the expenses. This witness was getting a salary of Rs.1,200 per month. PW 4 is Kishore Chander. He deposed that Mr. Surjit Singh Rikhi and Mr. Chaman Lal, Advocates, are practising on the income tax side. He proved certificate dated 20.10.1992 issued by Mr. Chaman lal Sharma. This certificate shows that the declared income of Jasbir Singh for the year 1990-91 was Rs.48,000 and tax paid was Rs.5,636; declared income of 1991_92 was Rs.75,000 and the tax paid was rs.9,156 and the declared income for 1992-93, i. e. , 1.4.1991 to 3.11.1991, was rs.56,000 and the tax paid was Rs.7,060. The Tribunal has rejected the entire claim of the claimants for the reasons given in paras 16 to 22 of the award which are quoted as follows: " (16) Now adverting to the question of quantum of compensation to be awarded to the claimants, claimant Parminder kaur appeared as PW 2 and testified that her deceased husband Jasbir Singh was running a transport business under the name and style of Eagle Transport co. and was earning about Rs.15,000 to Rs.16,000 per month and he was contributing Rs.12,000 per month. She produced the photocopy of income tax statement Exh. P-2 issued by Mr. C. L. Sharma, Advocate, the details of which are as under: Assessment year Income declared Tax paid 1990-91 (1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990) Rs.48,000 Rs.5,636 1991-92 (1.4.1990 to 31.3.1991) Rs.75,000 Rs.9,156 1992-93 (1.4.1991 to 3.11.91) till date of death Rs.56,000 Rs.7,060 She produced the insurance policies of vehicles (Exh. P-3 and Exh. P-4) of the trucks owned by the deceased Jasbir singh. In the cross-examination this witness stated that she has already sold three trucks of her late husband and kept two trucks only from where she is getting an income of Rs.8,000. P-3 and Exh. P-4) of the trucks owned by the deceased Jasbir singh. In the cross-examination this witness stated that she has already sold three trucks of her late husband and kept two trucks only from where she is getting an income of Rs.8,000. PW 3 Pardeep kumar Tripathi was employed as Manager in Eagle Transport run by Jasbir singh. This witness used to maintain the account of transport company. She produced the photocopy of the salary statement of the employees of Eagle transport. PW 4 Kishore Chander was examined to prove the original certificate of income tax returns (Exh. P-2)alleged to have been filed by Parminder malik before the income tax authority by her counsel. (17) It is pertinent to mention here that no witness from the income tax authority has been summoned to prove the factum of filing of return and income tax paid by the applicant except for the certificate issued by the counsel. It is further observed that these returns were filed after the filing of the claim petition with a view to secure compensation, therefore, they cannot form the basis of assessing the compensation. (18) In rebuttal Yashpal Sharma, RW 2 brought the ownership record of vehicle Nos. CHW 6944, CHO 1-8967 and cho 1344. According to him vehicle no. CHW 6944 was owned by Jasbir singh up to 29.1.1992 and the vehicle no. CH 01-0344 was owned by Bimla kalra, wife of Harminder Singh, resident of 12-H-15, PGI Colony, Sector 12, Chandigarh and this vehicle was transferred on 20.11.1989 in favour of rajinder Verma, son of P. L. Verma, r/o 682/1, Sector 41. According to this witness vehicle No. CHW 6944 is still in the name of Jasbir Singh, but Parminder kaur has been authorised to sell the same by the Estate Officer. The vehicle no. CHO 01-0976 is owned by Gurbachan Singh of Sector 28-A. (19) With the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on the record, learned counsel for the claimant submitted that Jasbir Singh deceased was having a flourishing transport business from where, he was earning Rs.16,000 per month and due to his untimely death, the claimants have suffered a great financial loss, hence, they are entitled to the compensation as claimed in the petition. (20) On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the insurance company that it has come in the testimony of PW 2 parminder Kaur that she owns 2 trucks from where she is getting an income of rs.8,000 per month. Assessment certificate Exh. P-2 and Exh. PW 4/1, the details of which if taken into consideration, it shows that there is no decrease in the income of the claimant even after death of Jasbir Singh. For the assessment year 1990-91, the income of the deceased is shown as Rs.48,000 where as it is stated by the claimant that her husband was earning Rs.16,000 per month which is falsified by this document. Similarly, his income for the year 1991-92 shows that the deceased has an income of Rs.75,000 which does not tally with the testimony of the claimant when she testified that her husband was contributing Rs.12,000 per month for the household expenses, the income further shown for the year 1992-93 was rs.56,000 which further suggests that there has been no decrease in the income. These returns are not proved in accordance with law as no official of income. tax authority has been examined, hence, there are only paper transactions and not to be acted upon for the purpose of assessing the income of the deceased. No other documentary evidence has been placed on the record to prove the exact income of the deceased. (21) Learned counsel submitted that even if the case may be taken from another angle, it would show that there is no loss to the estate of the deceased and claimants have filed this false claim in order to grab the compensation. (22) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties this court is of the view that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation in view of my findings on issue Nos.1 and 1-A, where I have held that the claimants have miserably failed to prove the accident in question. Hence, issue No.2 is accordingly decided against the claimants. " 15. In my opinion, the Tribunal has viewed this case from a wrong angle. It is proved on the record that in Eagle Transport company there were five trucks. Jasbir Singh was supervising that business along with Tripathi. After the death of jasbir Singh the business has suffered. Hence, issue No.2 is accordingly decided against the claimants. " 15. In my opinion, the Tribunal has viewed this case from a wrong angle. It is proved on the record that in Eagle Transport company there were five trucks. Jasbir Singh was supervising that business along with Tripathi. After the death of jasbir Singh the business has suffered. Three trucks were sold by the widow and even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that widow had two trucks with her after the death of her husband, still, the income from the business could not be the same. The lady has fairly admitted that she is earning Rs.8,000 per month by way of income from the two trucks. Thus, there is a financial loss to the family with the death of Jasbir Singh. Had Jasbir Singh been alive, the family would have got the earnings from the business. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased was contributing Rs.10,000 to Rs.12,000 per month towards household expenses. After death of Jasbir Singh, the loss is Rs.4,000 per month. Otherwise, for a transporter to earn Rs.12,000 per month with five trucks is not an excessive amount. Thus, there is loss of Rs.4,000 per month to the family. After deducting the personal expenditure of the deceased, the net loss to the family comes to Rs.36,000 per annum and in this case multiplier of 15 can be safely applied. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded rs.5,40,000 to the claimants by way of compensation. I do not agree with the observation of the learned Tribunal that there was no loss to the estate of the deceased and that the claimants have filed the present false claim petition. Loss to the estate is very much there when the business of the deceased suffered. From that very business the family of the deceased was surviving. 16. Thus, I reverse the finding of the tribunal on issue No.2 and decide this issue in part in favour of the claimants by holding that the claimants are entitled to compensation amounting to Rs.5,40,000 besides interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the filing of the petition till payment. This amount shall be paid by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally as the offending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , i. e. , respondent No.1. This amount shall be paid by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally as the offending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , i. e. , respondent No.1. 17. In view of my findings on issue nos.1, 1-A and 2, this appeal is hereby allowed by setting aside the impugned award and this court grants compensation of Rs.5,40,000 to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i. e. , 23.3.1992 till the entire payment is made. The payment shall be made by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally,within two months. There shall be no order as to costs. The amount of compensation shall be distributed in equal shares among the claimants as by this time claimant Nos.2 and 3 must have become major. Appeal allowed.