BHAWANI SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against award of Metor Accidents claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M. V. C. No. 113 of 2000 dated 2. 1. 2001. The claim for compensation has been dismissed by Tribunal on the ground that claimants failed to prove that minibus No. MP 20-E 9499 was involved in this accident. For coming to this conclusion, Tribunal has found that in F. I. R. , Exh. P-1, the version is entirely different, deceased coming through truck and being hit on the roadside, etc. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, it may be stated that Santoo gontia was going to attend the marriage of Rakesh Gontia on 28. 4. 1999. He was travelling by minibus No. MP 20-E 9499, owned by Vindravan Prasad Dixit and driven by Kissu Patel. Allegation is that this minibus was being driven rashly and negligently. When it had reached between paharewar Naka and Sihora at 2 a. m. , it dashed against a jeep standing there, as a result of which Santoo Gontia fell on the ground along with Bihari and Jagdish. All of them sustained injuries, though in case of Santoo Gontia, it was more serious and he died in hospital where he was admitted. ( 3 ) FIRST information report was lodged in Police Station, Sihora, by Mahesh Dixit, thumb marked by Bihari. It appears that the first information report, Exh. P-1, was not read over to Bihari and he was made to thumb mark it which is clear from his version in the court. Deceased Santoo Gontia, aged 26 years was agricultural labourer earning Rs. 1,500 per month. Claimant is the wife of deceased Santoo Gontia. She claims compensation of Rs. 9,32,000 with interest from the respondents. The owner and driver remained absent, therefore, proceeded ex pane from the initial stage of the case. Claimant Jaggu Bai states that deceased died in the accident. She places on record first information report, postmortem report. Shankarlal, PW 2, states that on 28. 4. 1999, they were going in minibus No. MP 20-E 9499 at about 2 a. m. The minibus dashed against a jeep between sihora and Paharewar Naka. As a result, bihari, Jagdish and Santoo Gontia fell on the road and thereafter Santoo Gontia died. He also states that Kissu Patel was driving minibus at high speed. 4. 1999, they were going in minibus No. MP 20-E 9499 at about 2 a. m. The minibus dashed against a jeep between sihora and Paharewar Naka. As a result, bihari, Jagdish and Santoo Gontia fell on the road and thereafter Santoo Gontia died. He also states that Kissu Patel was driving minibus at high speed. Similarly, Bihari, pw 3, Jagdish, PW 4 and Arjun, PW 5, also state that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the minibus and Santoo Gontia died in this accident. Arjun, PW 5, denied that they were going by truck and accident was caused by jeep. ( 4 ) IN the first information report, Exh. P-1, it is stated that Jagdish, Santoo Gontia, Arjun and other persons were going by truck to attend marriage. After Paharewar naka, they got down and while they were standing by the side of the road, a jeep came at high speed and dashed against them. Santoo Gontia sustained injuries apart from Bihari and Jagdish. The accident occurred on 28. 4. 1999 at 2. 30. a. m. , whereas report was lodged immediately after the accident at 3 a. m. Claims Tribunal holds that claimants failed to substantiate that jeep No. ' MP 20-H 2830 was not involved in the accident, rather minibus No. MP 20-E 9499 was involved, since first information report makes mention of jeep no. MP 20-H 2830 and not minibus No. MP 20-E 9499. Therefore, there is variation about the taking place of accident and involvement of vehicle as per F. I. R. , Exh. P-1 and the version of the claimant. In this background, Claims Tribunal has rejected the claim for compensation. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the parties were heard and record examined. Mr. P. P. Ambedkar, counsel for claimants submits that Jaggu bai, widow of late Santoo Gontia is an illiterate tribal and she has hardly any knowledge about exactness as to income of deceased Santoo Gontia and other related matters. Same is the case with Bihari and jagdish who also sustained injuries in this accident. Taking advantage of their rustic and rural origin, apart from illiteracy and poverty, the first information report was lodged by Mahesh Dixit, a relation of the owner of minibus No. MP 20-E 9499. It gave misdescription about the accident and causes thereof to escape the liability. Taking advantage of their rustic and rural origin, apart from illiteracy and poverty, the first information report was lodged by Mahesh Dixit, a relation of the owner of minibus No. MP 20-E 9499. It gave misdescription about the accident and causes thereof to escape the liability. When this fact came to the notice of the claimant Jaggu Bai, she raised protest and filed complaint to Sub-Divisional Officer (Police), Sihora to open the case and make investigation. However, the police was not in a position to summon the accused and record their statement and proceed against them. Some documents are shown. On the other hand, Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, counsel for respondents, vehemently opposes the submissions of the appellants and reiterates that minibus No. MP 20-E 9499 was not involved in this accident. First information report is at the instance of Mahesh Dixit, thumb marked by Bihari, therefore, he must own it. Claims Tribunal has justly and properly considered the matter and has rightly recorded its conclusion that minibus No. MP 20-E 9499 is not involved in the accident since it does not find mention in the first information report exh. P-1, in which involvement of jeep no. MP 20-H 2830 is stated. ( 6 ) GIVING serious consideration to the whole matter, we are of the opinion that claims Tribunal has failed to deal with the matter properly resulting in dismissal of the claim. Jaggu Bai is the wife of the deceased Santoo Gontia. She is a tribal and illiterate woman, therefore, much cannot be expected from her with regard to accident and death of her husband. Similarly, bihari and Jagdish are also tribals and illiterate. Therefore, with a view to escape liability, instead of involvement of minibus no. MP 20-E 9499, mention of jeep No. MP 20-H 2830 has been made in the first information report allegedly recorded at the instance of a relation of owner of the minibus and thumb marked by Bihari, who has stated that it was driver of minibus who caused the accident. There is no reason why this statement should be disbelieved. Circumstances clearly indicate that owner of the vehicle did it to evade liability to pay compensation for the accidental death of Santoo Gontia. Respondents failed to appear before Claims Tribunal to contest the case and were proceeded ex pane. There is no reason why this statement should be disbelieved. Circumstances clearly indicate that owner of the vehicle did it to evade liability to pay compensation for the accidental death of Santoo Gontia. Respondents failed to appear before Claims Tribunal to contest the case and were proceeded ex pane. This is another reason to demonstrate that they are avoiding to face the reality and escape from responsibility in this case. Respondents have alleged that Santoo Gontia and others were travelling by truck as recorded in the first information report, which disposes the case of claimants. It is further alleged that the truck hit jeep No. MP 20h 2830 which does not exist. Therefore, they have intentionally given the number of jeep which either does not exist or is not involved in the accident. In the totality of circumstances, the finding recorded by the tribunal is unsustainable and is set aside. It is held that first information report does not record correctly the taking place of accident, vehicle and responsibility therefor. In view of protest by claimants and the statement made in court, no reliance can be placed on the first information report. ( 7 ) HAVING come to the conclusion aforesaid, we proceed to determine compensation in this case. Jaggu Bai states that her husband was earning Rs. 10,32,000 per month through labour. She also says that he used to bring home Rs. 10,32,000. She again says that she did not know how much her husband was earning daily. Statement of Jaggu Bai confirms our view that she is an illiterate tribal woman hardly conversant with the money matters and income of deceased. Therefore, her statement with regard to income of the deceased is not satisfactory. Post-mortem examination discloses that age of the deceased was 26 years at the time of accident. He left behind two minor children of 4 years and 7 months of age. Therefore, compensation can be assessed on the basis of income of an unemployed person, namely, Rs. 15,000 per annum. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, after making deduction of l/3rd towards personal expenditure, annual dependency would be Rs. 10,000. Multiplied by 18, being the suitable multiplier in this case, compensation works out to Rs. 1,80,000. Apart from this, claimants are also entitled to Rs. 10,000 towards loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500 towards loss to the estate and Rs. 10,000. Multiplied by 18, being the suitable multiplier in this case, compensation works out to Rs. 1,80,000. Apart from this, claimants are also entitled to Rs. 10,000 towards loss of expectancy of life, Rs. 5,000 towards loss of consortium, Rs. 2,500 towards loss to the estate and Rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to rs. 1,99,500 say Rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh ). ( 9 ) APPEAL is allowed. Award of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur, dated 2. 1. 2001 is set aside. Claimants-appellants are held entitled to total compensation of rs. 2,00,000 (rupees two lakh) from the respondents, carrying interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment. Claimants shall share compensation as under: (1) Jaggu Bai (Appellant No. 1): Fifty per cent (2) Deepak (Appellant No. 2): Twenty-five per cent (3) Maiki (Appellant No. 3): Twenty-five per centchildren (appellant Nos. 2 and 3) being minor, amount of compensation of their respective shares be deposited in the Tribunal, which shall invest the same in a nationalised bank in fixed deposit for period they attain majority. Share of appellant no. 1 Jaggu Bai may be released in her favour on demand, or that may also be invested in same nationalised bank in fixed deposit, and in case she wants to realise interest accruing thereon, Bank Manager shall release the same monthly/quarterly/ six monthly or yearly, as the case may be. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .