R. V. RAVEENDRAN, A. M. SAPRE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award, dated 6. 7. 2001, passed by the learned Additional Member, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Manawar, District dhar in Claim Case No. 37 of 1999. By impugned award, the learned Member of claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. Facts in brief that led to filing of claim petition out of which this appeal arises need to be mentioned in brief infra. ( 2 ) ON 15. 6. 1998, Narsingh, aged about 40 years, was returning to his house. It is at that time, the truck bearing No. MP 09-KA 4212 which was owned by the respondent no. 1 and driven by the respondent No. 2 came from rear and dashed to Narsingh. The impact of the vehicle was so violent that Narsingh succumbed to injuries on the spot. It is this event, i. e. , death of Narsingh, which gave rise to filing of the claim petition out of which this appeal arises claiming compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was, inter alia, averred that the accident in question had occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was further averred that the vehicle in question at the relevant time (i. e. , the date of accident) was insured with the respondent No. 3/non-applicant no. 3 and was owned by respondent No. 1 and hence, all the three are severally and jointly liable to pay compensation to the claimants for the loss that they sustained due to untimely death of their bread-earner (Narsingh ). So far as owner and the driver of offending vehicle were concerned, i. e. , non-applicant No. 1 and non-applicant No. 2, they remained ex parte since inception. They did not even file written statement. The claim was only contested by insurance company (N. A. No. 3) on limited defence available to them under the Act. ( 3 ) CLAIMANTS in support of their claim filed documents and also led oral evidence for proving the factum of accident and its nature. There was no evidence in rebuttal led by the non-applicants. The claim was only contested by insurance company (N. A. No. 3) on limited defence available to them under the Act. ( 3 ) CLAIMANTS in support of their claim filed documents and also led oral evidence for proving the factum of accident and its nature. There was no evidence in rebuttal led by the non-applicants. However, by impugned award, the learned Member of tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants holding, inter alia, that claimants have failed to prove the accident. It is against this award, the claimants have come up in appeal. ( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Ajit Chhabra, the learned counsel for appellants and Mr. Anil Goyal, learned counsel for insurance company, respondent No. 3. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned award resulting in allowing the claim petition by awarding the compensation as indicated infra. ( 6 ) WE have gone through the evidence led by the claimants. Chhotu, PW 2, is examined by the claimants as eyewitness to the incident. Chhotu has in clear terms in his evidence deposed that he saw the accident which involved the offending vehicle. He also deposed that the number of offending vehicle was MP 09-KA 4212 and he also knows its owner. Even in the cross-examination he maintained his version which he deposed in his chief. We do not, therefore, find any reason much less cogent to disbelieve the sworn testimony of chhotu, PW 2. It is much more so because there was nothing led in rebuttal by any of non-applicants. Indeed, nothing prevented owner/driver (N. A. 1/n. A. 2) to contest the claim and led evidence in rebuttal for showing that they were not at all involved in the accident on the fateful day. We are, therefore, of the view that learned Member of the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the claimant failed to prove the accident in question. Instead while upsetting the impugned finding on this issue, we hold that claimants were able to prove that accident in question did occur with the offending vehicle and it was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Instead while upsetting the impugned finding on this issue, we hold that claimants were able to prove that accident in question did occur with the offending vehicle and it was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. ( 7 ) THIS takes us to the next question as to what should be the quantum of compensation that can be awarded to the claimants. It has come in evidence that deceased was a labourer and was aged around 35 years. In our view, in the absence of any cogent evidence tendered by the claimants about the income of the deceased, we consider it proper to take Rs. 15,000 to be his yearly income as provided under the Schedule. Applying the multiplier of 15 and after deducting 1/3rd amount from Rs. 15,000, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 is worked out towards compensation under the head 'loss of dependency'. In addition, the claimants are entitled for conventional amounts and expenses such as loss of consortium, loss to estate, funeral expenses, etc. We, therefore, quantify a total sum of Rs. 15,000 under these heads. In all, the claimants are held entitled to claim a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000 + Rs. 15,000 = Rs. 1,65,000. The awarded sum shall carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum payable from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation. ( 8 ) COMING to the question of liability, it was not disputed that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No. 3, i. e. , insurance company on the date of accident. It also could not be disputed that the vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 2/non-applicant No. 2. Indeed, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence led by the respondent No. I/respondent No. 2, we have no hesitation in holding that vehicle in question was owned by respondent No. 1 and driven at the relevant time by respondent no. 2. Accordingly, all the three non-applicants are jointly and severally liable to suffer an award passed by this court. ( 9 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award is set aside. The claim petition stands allowed. An award for Rs. 1,65,000 is passed against the non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i. e. , respondent nos. ( 9 ) IN view of aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award is set aside. The claim petition stands allowed. An award for Rs. 1,65,000 is passed against the non-applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, i. e. , respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Counsel's fees of appellant Rs. 1,000, if certified. Appeal allowed. .