ARUN MISHRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred against an award dated 4. 9. 2002 passed by Third Motor Accidents Claims tribunal in M. C. C. No. 24 of 2001 dismissing the claim petition filed by claimants claiming compensation for death of shakil Ahmad, aged 20 years. ( 2 ) IT was averred in the claim petition that the deceased Shakil Ahmad was a cleaner in truck No. GJ 17-6814. The accident took place in the intervening night or 28. 5. 1994 and 29. 5. 1994. The respondent no. 1, Balmukund was the driver of the truck. Another truck No. C II 6851 was standing due to puncture. It was alleged that Balmukund drove the truck in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against stationery truck No. CII 6851. The cleaner shakil Ahmed died on the spot. The report was lodged at police station. An offence was registered against Balmukund under sections 304-A, 279, 337 and 427 of the indian Penal Code. The charge-sheet was filed in the court of Judicial Magistrate, first Class. Deceased was earning Rs. 1,000 per month as salary as cleaner, a compensation of Rs. 10,50,000 was claimed. The insurance company in the reply contended that the responsibility is that of the driver of truck No. C II 6851. He parked the truck without any indication on the road. The truck in question was not insured. ( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition only on the ground that it has not been established that Shakil Ahmad, cleaner had died. The reason given by the tribunal dismissing the claim petition is that in the F. I. R. the name of the deceased has not been mentioned. The death of an unknown cleaner has been mentioned in the post-mortem report because his name was not mentioned. Thus, it has not been found to be established that the deceased was Shakil Ahmad. ( 4 ) MR. Anil Lala, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the written statement the insurer has not taken the plea that Shakil Ahmad had not died. As it was not denied in the written statement that Shakil Ahmad has not died still learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, hence suitable compensation be awarded. ( 5 ) MR. Ajeet Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. As it was not denied in the written statement that Shakil Ahmad has not died still learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, hence suitable compensation be awarded. ( 5 ) MR. Ajeet Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 6, has submitted that no interference is called for as in the post-mortem report the name of the deceased was not mentioned. ( 6 ) IN our considered opinion the learned Claims Tribunal has been misdirected while dismissing the claim petition. It has committed gross illegality while dismissing the claim petition. It was not the plea taken in the written statement that Shakil ahmad, cleaner, had not died in the accident. This question was not in issue at all. Several witnesses have been examined by the claimants. Saira Bee, CW 1, Sarphaj hussain, CW 2, Shakila, CW 3 and Rubina, cw 4. All have stated that Shakil ahmad (cleaner) had died in the accident. No cross-examination was made by the respondents as to Shakil Ahmad had not died and some other person had died. ( 7 ) AS the accident took place in between indore and Bhopal, obviously there was no one to identify the cleaner, as it appears that the driver, Balmukund had run away and has also not entered in the witness-box. Obviously, he was driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationary vehicle. It has been mentioned in the F. I. R. that all precautions were taken by the stationary truck to give indication that said truck was parked. The negligence of Balmukund is writ large. Thus, we find that the accident took place owing to rash and negligent driving of Balmukund. He dashed the stationary truck owing to which Shakil Ahmad sustained injuries and died on the spot. ( 8 ) THE name of the deceased was not mentioned in the F. I. R. is of no consequence. Obviously an F. I. R. was lodged by the person who was not aware of the name of the cleaner and, therefore, the name of the cleaner could not have been mentioned. Similarly, post-mortem was performed when there was none to inform the name of the deceased. Obviously an F. I. R. was lodged by the person who was not aware of the name of the cleaner and, therefore, the name of the cleaner could not have been mentioned. Similarly, post-mortem was performed when there was none to inform the name of the deceased. In the circumstances, when nobody was there to intimate the name of the deceased, it could not have been mentioned in the post-mortem report as the claimants came to know later on about the factum of the death and accident. Thus, in our opinion Claims Tribunal has grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition on the basis that death of Shakil Ahmad has not been established. In our opinion, Shakil ahmad died in accident and this fact was not in dispute. ( 9 ) COMING to the question of quantum of compensation, Saira Bee, CW 1, has stated that the deceased Shakil Ahmad used to receive Rs. 1,050 per month. We accept the statement of Saira Bee, CW 1. The annual income comes to Rs. 12,600. We deduct 1/3rd as self expenditure of the deceased, which he would have spent on himself, had he been alive. Thus loss of annual dependency comes to Rs. 8,400. The father of the deceased had died earlier. The deceased Shakil Ahmad was 20 years of age at the time of the accident. As the widowed mother and three sisters are the claimants, the deceased was the sole breadwinner of the family, we apply the multi-plier of 16 at the 20 years of age of the deceased. (Rs. 8,400 x 16) = Rs. 1,34,400. In addition the claimants are entitled to rs. 2,000 for funeral expenses, Rs. 2,500 on account of loss to estate, Rs. 5,000 on account of loss of expectancy of life. The total compensation comes to Rs. 1,34,400 + Rs. 2,000 + Rs. 2,500 + Rs. 5,000 = rs. 1,43,900 (rupees one lakh forty-three thousand and nine hundred only ). The enhanced amount to carry interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition. The liability is held to be of driver, owner and insurer of truck No. C II 6851. The appeal is allowed in part. Rs. 5,000 is awarded as costs. Appeal partly allowed. .