C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) WHILE travelling in the van bearing no. AP 02 T 1458 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, first respondent received injuries as a result of the collision between the said van and a bus belonging to the appellant. Alleging that the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, first respondent filed a claim petition seeking compensation of rs. 75,000/- from respondents 2, 3 and the appellant. Second respondent chose to remain exparte both before the tribunal and this Court. Third respondent and the appellant filed counters contesting the claim petition. In support of his case, first respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-5. Third respondent did not adduce evidence, either oral or documentary on its behalf. Appellant examined the driver of the bus involved in the accident as R. W. 1 but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Holding that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of R. W. 1, the Tribunal awarded rs. 52,186/- as compensation to the first respondent against the appellant and exonerated respondents 2 and 3 from liability. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is preferred by the third respondent before the Tribunal. ( 2 ) THE following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant i. e. , r. W. 1 or due to the negligence of the driver of the van belonging to the second respondent? (2) To what compensation is the first respondent entitled to? ( 3 ) POINT No. 1: Mainly on the basis that r. W. 1 was charge sheeted by the police in connection with the said accident and since the first respondent as P. W. 1 also stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R. W. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus of the appellant by R. W. 1. Merely because the police charge-sheeted R. W. 1 it cannot be presumed that the allegations therein are true. The allegations in the charge-sheet have to be proved by adducing oral evidence. Merely because the police charge-sheeted R. W. 1 it cannot be presumed that the allegations therein are true. The allegations in the charge-sheet have to be proved by adducing oral evidence. It is significant to note that ex. A-2, certified copy of the charge-sheet, does not show that the investigating officer took pains to visit the scene of accident and verify as to how actually the accident took place. He did not even take pains to conduct a panchanama of the scene of accident and draw a sketch of the scene of accident, though the driver of the van died in the accident. In fatal accident cases panchanama and sketch of the scene of offence are very important because they give first hand information as to where actually the accident took place and if there are skid marks and on which side of the road the vehicle involved in the accident, was there at the time of accident and after the accident and would assist the court in coming to a just decision. In this case the investigating Officer solely, basing on the statements of witnesses recorded by him, seems to have charge-sheeted R. W. 1 which is but a table investigation. ( 4 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 is that the driver of the van, on seeing the bus coming in the opposite direction, took the van behind a stationary bus, and at that time the bus being driven by R. W. 1 dashed against the van. The recitals in Ex. A-1 (FIR) show that the driver of the van in which the 1st respondent was travelling received injuries on his legs and other parts of the body. According to the allegations in the chargesheet, the driver of the van succumbed to those injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The evidence of R. W 1 is that the driver of the van came in the opposite direction of his bus at a high speed and dashed against the bus being driven by him. That versions appears to be true, as the version of the first respondent (the sole witness examined on his behalf) that the van driver took the van behind a stationary RTC bus at the time of accident cannot be true because it is not the case of first respondent that the stationary RTC bus also was damaged in the accident. That versions appears to be true, as the version of the first respondent (the sole witness examined on his behalf) that the van driver took the van behind a stationary RTC bus at the time of accident cannot be true because it is not the case of first respondent that the stationary RTC bus also was damaged in the accident. Had R. W. 1 (driver of bus) came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a van, which was stationed behind a stationary bus, resulting in injuries to both legs of the van driver, the bus, in front of the van also must have got damaged. For the reasons best known to the first respondent, he did not even produce the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The charge-sheet does not disclose that the vehicles involved in the accident were got tested by a Motor Vehicles Inspector. ( 5 ) SINCE first respondent received injuries due to a collision between the two vehicles, i. e. , the van in which he was travelling and bus coming in its opposite direction, unless the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent, the accident could not have taken place. Even if one of them was careful, they could have easily averted the accident. Obviously that is the reason why the owners of both the vehicles involved in the accident were made parties to the claim petition. So I hold that the accident involving the first respondent took place due to 50% negligence of the driver of the van of second respondent and due to 50% negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. The point is answered accordingly. ( 6 ) POINT No. 2: The evidence of P. W. 1 is that he suffered fracture to his left shoulder and underwent treatment in SVRR hospital for two days as an in-patient and thereafter he was shifted to Madanapalle where he took treatment under Dr. Sanjeevarayudu and Dr. Eswar Reddy and spent rs. 13,106. 70 and that he used to earn rs. 2500/- per month from hotel business and by manufacturing almyrahs. Since ex. A-3, wound Certificate, shows that first respondent suffered a fracture to his left shoulder and other injuries, it is clear that he suffered a grievous and simple injuries in the accident. Hence he is entitled to Rs. 6,000/- towards pain and suffering. 2500/- per month from hotel business and by manufacturing almyrahs. Since ex. A-3, wound Certificate, shows that first respondent suffered a fracture to his left shoulder and other injuries, it is clear that he suffered a grievous and simple injuries in the accident. Hence he is entitled to Rs. 6,000/- towards pain and suffering. ( 7 ) SINCE Ex. A-5 medical bills produced by the first respondent show that he spent rs. 13,106. 70 for treatment, he can be awarded Rs. 14,000/- towards medical treatment including attendant charges. Rs. 2000/- can be awarded to him towards extra nourishment and travelling expenses. ( 8 ) IF first respondent was running a hotel and an almyrah manufacturing unit there should be doc mentary evidence in respect thereof, as it is well known that for running a hotel, and an industry licences from the local authority are essential. Since no documentary evidence is produced to show that first respondent obtained licences from the local authority to run a hotel or almyrah manufacturing unit it should be taken that the first respondent was not having a hotel or almyrah manufacturing unit. Since the accident occurred in 1992, and since the first respondent is a resident of Filer, the average income of the first respondent from any source, in the absence of documentary evidence, can be taken as Rs. 1,000/- per month or Rs. 12,000/- per year. Because of the fracture sustained by him in the accident, the first respondent might have been out of work for about two months and so he is entitled to loss of earnings for two months at rs. 1,000/- per month i. e. , Rs. 2,000/ -. ( 9 ) THOUGH first respondent produced ex. A-4 Disability Certificate, since the persor who issued it is not examined, it cannot be taken into consideration for holding that he is suffering from 10% disability, as mentioned therein. Even assuming that Ex. A-4 is true, since the annual income of the first respondent is taken as Rs. 12,000/- and since he was aged about 42 years at the time of the accident taking the multiplier as 12, the loss of earnings for his 10% disability would come to Rs. 14,400/- i. e. , 10% of Rs. 12,000 x 12. Since first respondent did not examine the person who issued Ex. A-4 he is entitled to rs. 14,000/- towards the alleged continuing disability. 14,400/- i. e. , 10% of Rs. 12,000 x 12. Since first respondent did not examine the person who issued Ex. A-4 he is entitled to rs. 14,000/- towards the alleged continuing disability. ( 10 ) THUS first respondent is entitled to (6000+14000+2000+2000+14000) = rs. 38,0007- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Since I held that the accident occurred due to 50% negligence of R. W. 1 who is the driver of the appellant, appellant is liable to pay rs. 19,000/- and since the accident occurred due to 50% negligence of the driver of the van, second respondent is liable to pay rs. 19,000/- to first respondent. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent is that since there is no evidence on record to show that the van of the second respondent was insured with the third respondent, and since the second respondent chose to remain ex parte, third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the first respondent. I am unable to agree with the said contention because in this claim petition, first respondent clearly stated that the van in which he was travelling was insured with the third respondent and gave the particulars of insurance in column No. 16 of the claim petition, which relates to name and address of the insurer of the vehicle. Third respondent in paragraph 3 of its counter stated that the allegations in para No. 3 under columns 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14 and 26 (a), (c) and (d) of the claim petition are all not true and correct. It means and implies that the allegations in column No. 16 are not denied by the third respondent. As per rule 5 of Order VIII C. P. C. allegations in plaint which are not specifically denied in the written statement should be deemed to be admitted. It is well known that admitted facts need not be proved. It means and implies that the allegations in column No. 16 are not denied by the third respondent. As per rule 5 of Order VIII C. P. C. allegations in plaint which are not specifically denied in the written statement should be deemed to be admitted. It is well known that admitted facts need not be proved. When third respondent did not deny insurance of the van involved in the accident with it, and when there is nothing in the counter filed by the third respondent to show that it denied the insurance of the van involved in the accident with it, it should be taken that the third respondent impliedly, if not expressly, admitted the insurance of the vehicle with it and so third respondent also is liable to pay the compensation payable by second respondent to the first respondent. The point is answered accordingly. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Award passed by the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for rs. 38,000/- in favour of the first respondent against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit into the court. The liability of the appellant is to the extent of Rs. 19,000/- and interest thereon and the liability of respondents 2 and 3 is to the extent of Rs. 19,000/- and interest thereon. First respondent is entitled to proportionate costs in the Tribunal from the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 at 50% each. Rest of the claim of the first respondent stands dismissed without costs. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.