BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Bhopal, in Claim case No. 80 of 1993, dated 9. 2. 1996. ( 2 ) GOPAL Mahadu Patil (deceased) was caretaker with Nepa Mill Rest House, Bho pal. On 25. 2. 1991, he was hit by speeding matador MOD 6750, driven rashly and negligently by Tejendra Pal Singh, owned by the respondent. He was shifted to Hamidia hospital, Bhopal, where he died on 26. 2. 1991. The claimants are his widow bana Bai and the three children, namely, (i) Chandrakala Patil, (ii) Vishnu Patil and (iii) Bhupendra Patil. They submit that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,200 per month whereon the family was dependent. Accordingly, compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 has been claimed. ( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 Tejendra Pal singh, driver, has been proceeded ex pane, though he died during the pendency of the case. Similarly, Union of India has been proceeded ex pane. The Commissioner of income Tax has contested the case. It is denied that the accident was caused by matador No. MOD 6750. Driver was on leave on that date due to illness of his wife. Therefore, it is submitted that the claim be dismissed since master cannot be held liable in the case in which the vehicle is used against the instructions of the master during the leave period. Thus, alternative defence has also been taken. ( 4 ) CLAIMS Tribunal holds that identity of the vehicle has not been established; therefore, the claim has been rejected, though it is found that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased and Tejendra pal Singh was in the employment of the respondent. ( 5 ) FIRST question for determination is whether finding of the Claims Tribunal on issue No. 1 is sustainable. With a view to examine this question, reference to the evidence recorded in the case is necessary. G. R. Soni AW 2 states that he was going with the deceased at the relevant time when the offending vehicle Matador No. MOD 6750 hit the deceased. As a result, deceased sustained injuries and was shifted to Bhopal hospital and then to Hamidia Hospital. He was subjected to surgical intervention, but could not survive. On inquiry, it was found that the vehicle belonged to the income Tax Department, Bhopal. As a result, deceased sustained injuries and was shifted to Bhopal hospital and then to Hamidia Hospital. He was subjected to surgical intervention, but could not survive. On inquiry, it was found that the vehicle belonged to the income Tax Department, Bhopal. It is evident from the evidence of this witness that the vehicle and its owner were identified on 25. 2. 1991. The evidence of this witness is corroborated by Deepak Patel, AW 3, on essential particulars. ( 6 ) AGAINST this evidence, respondent has produced Geetesh Kumar, NAW 1 and vijay Kumar, NAW 2. The former states that the driver was on leave on that date and, therefore, did not take out the vehicle from the premises. The latter also states that the vehicle continued to remain in the premises of the Income Tax Department. ( 7 ) THE crucial question is identification of the vehicle. Claimant's witnesses have clearly pointed out that the accident was caused by Matador No. MOD 6750, owned by the Income Tax Department, Bhopal. Respondent's witnesses do not deny that the vehicle belonged to the Income Tax department. Therefore, it is clearly established that the vehicle caused the accident. Further, evidence also discloses that certain persons who saw taking place of the accident, ran after the vehicle and went to the hospital, and gave this number of the vehicle. ( 8 ) MUCH cannot be read in the first information report where there is overwriting on the last digits. Fact remains that the matter was reported to the police and investigation revealed involvement of this vehicle which was impounded as per statement of Geetesh Kumar, NAW 1. ( 9 ) FURTHER statement that the driver tejendra Pal Singh was on leave on that date is prone to serious doubt. The accident took place on 25. 2. 1991. He files application for casual leave on 27. 2. 1991 for availing it for 22. 2. 1991, 25. 2. 1991 and 26. 2. 1991. It was sanctioned on 27. 2. 1991. Substance of evidence, therefore, points out involvement of this vehicle. The accident took place on 25. 2. 1991. He files application for casual leave on 27. 2. 1991 for availing it for 22. 2. 1991, 25. 2. 1991 and 26. 2. 1991. It was sanctioned on 27. 2. 1991. Substance of evidence, therefore, points out involvement of this vehicle. During the course of investigation, Ashwani Kumar, deputy Director, Income Tax Department, stated that the accident was caused by the vehicle No. MOD 6750 which was under his control and driven by Tejendra Pal singh who had taken it with the permission of Assistant Director, Hari Saboo, since wife of the driver was to be operated. It is said that the accident was caused by the vehicle No. MOD 6750 owned by the Income Tax Department, Bhopal and driven by its driver Tejendra Pal Singh rashly and negligently on 25. 2. 1991 resulting in the death of the deceased. Therefore, involvement of the vehicle is clearly established and finding of the Claims Tribunal on issue No. 1 is set aside. ( 10 ) HAVING come to the conclusion aforesaid, we turn to determine compensation in this case. The deceased was caretaker with Nepa Mill Ltd. at their Bhopal rest House. As per salary statement, he was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 2,416. 07 in addition to the bonus of Rs. 1,000 per annum. Although claimants submit that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,200 per month, yet in view of the salary statement, compensation has to be determined on that basis. Including bonus amount, the income of the deceased is fixed at Rs. 2,500 per month, yearly Rs. 30,000. Making deduction of 1/3rd for personal expenditure, the annual dependency comes to Rs. 20,000. At the time of accident, deceased was 35 years old. Accordingly, the multiplier of 17 is applicable in this case. Therefore, the compensation comes to Rs. 3,40,000 plus rs. 7,000 for loss of expectancy of life, rs. 2,500 for loss to the estate, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium to the wife and rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, total rs. 3,56,500. The compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment which may be deposited with the Claims tribunal within 2 months. 2,500 for loss to the estate, Rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium to the wife and rs. 2,000 towards funeral expenses, total rs. 3,56,500. The compensation will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application till payment which may be deposited with the Claims tribunal within 2 months. On deposit, the tribunal will invest the same with some nationalised bank in F. D. R. as follows: (i) Bana Bai (widow) 50 per cent (ii) Chandrakala } (daughter) } Remaining (iii) Vishnu (son) } 50 per cent in } equal share (iv) Bhupendra (son) } the amount of interest may be released in favour of Bana Bai on all F. D. Rs. monthly/ quarterly/yearly as may be demanded by her, or in part thereof, otherwise, it shall be added to the principal amount and invested with the same. The amount so released shall be utilised for the education, maintenance and welfare of the family. Whenever any amount from the principal is required for the higher education/house construction/ business/marriage, application for that purpose may be filed before the Claims Tribunal which shall allow the same on merits. In case of release for the benefit of either of the legal heirs, the amount shall be drawn from the share of bana Bai and that legal heir. Costs on parties. Appeal allowed. .