Judgement U. C. MAHESHWARI, J. :- The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against dismissal of his claim by IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna in MVC No. 265/97 vide award dated 31-7-1998. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the father of the appellant Khunnilal Dhimar was going on his bicycle to village Parsokha in the night of 13-4-1991. The chain of his bicycle fell down on the way near hotel Pratapgarh. While he was to repair it. One truck bearing registration No. MPT 8528 driven by respondent No. 1 came and stopped 10-15 steps ahead of him. Thereafter without giving horn or switching the back light it was taken back in a rash and negligent manner and ran over him. Resultantly, on sustaining injuries he died on the spot. One Ram Kumar was also going with him on a separate bicycle who lodged the FIR. The body of the deceased was sent to hospital where autopsy was carried out. After holding investigation, the respondent No. 1 was charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. In aforesaid report due to oversight of Ram Kumar, complainant number of truck was mentioned as CPS 8528 instead of the correct number, MPT 8528 but on investigation it was found that such accident had occurred and the truck bearing registration No. MPT 8528 was involved. The vehicle in question was seized. It was registered in the name of respondent No. 2 as per registration certificate of it and insured with respondent No. 3 the insurer. 3. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased Khunnilal was earning Rs. 500/- as salary as truck Cleaner in a truck. That apart, he was also getting some daily allowance. Due to his untimely death the appellant has been deprived of the love and affection of his father and the financial assistance. As per averments of the petition the entire salary was spent by the deceased to look after the appellant and the family. It was also pleaded that the age of the deceased Khunnilal, was 28 years on the date of this accident while the appellant was only a year and half old and residing with his natural guardian, the mother. With these pleadings the claim was preferred for grant of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. 4. The respondent Nos. It was also pleaded that the age of the deceased Khunnilal, was 28 years on the date of this accident while the appellant was only a year and half old and residing with his natural guardian, the mother. With these pleadings the claim was preferred for grant of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. 4. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing their written statement denied the averments of the claimant with a further contention that the respondent No. 1 had valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle. The ownership of the truck was admitted by the respondent No. 2. The salary of the deceased Rs. 500 per month was denied. A plea of limitation was advanced. In alternative it was pleaded that if any liability is fastened against them, the respondent No. 3 being the insurer of said truck is responsible to indemnify the same. 5. The respondent No. 3 in its written statement while admitted the insurance of truck bearing registration No. MPT 8528 pleaded that the alleged accident was not the consequence of any act of the respondent No. 1 in as much as truck No. CPS 8528 was mentioned in the FIR lodged by the complainant Ramkumar. The claim was not entertainable being barred by time. Although, the appellant was minor but his mother, the natural guardian could have filed the same within the prescribed period of limitation. The limitation could not be extended even on holding that appellant was a minor. The particulars of driving licence, registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate of the alleged truck were not supplied with the intimation of accident and hence, the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner. 6. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed, and parties were directed to produce their evidence. In order to prove the claim two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant while no witness was examined on behalf of the respondents. On appreciation of the evidence the Tribunal has held that said Khunnilal, aged 28 years died in a vehicular accident and was earning Rs. 500 per month but dismissed the petition by holding that the alleged accident was due to the said insured truck bearing registration No. MPT 8528. Hence, this appeal. 7. On appreciation of the evidence the Tribunal has held that said Khunnilal, aged 28 years died in a vehicular accident and was earning Rs. 500 per month but dismissed the petition by holding that the alleged accident was due to the said insured truck bearing registration No. MPT 8528. Hence, this appeal. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that merely on account of some mistake in mentioning the series of registration of the truck as CPS instead MPT in the FIR, the claim could not be dismissed while the number and other description of the vehicle was rightly mentioned in it. Even on investigation Police has found that Khunnilal died in the road accident and had seized truck No. MPT 8528 as it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and merely involved in the accident account of non-examination of such complainant Ram Kumar the claim of the appellant could not be thrown away by the Tribunal. While the aforesaid FIR seizure memo and other documents have been proved by admissible evidence. The same have not been rebutted by any of the respondents in any manner. Hence, there was sufficient circumstance to draw the adverse inference against the respondents for accepting the claim of appellant and that having been not done the award deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 supporting the impugned award has submitted that it is based on proper appreciation of evidence and therefore, does not require any interference at this stage. In the alternative he submitted that on holding any liability against them, the truck having been duly insured with the respondent No. 3 the liability should be saddled on the insurer and they should be exonerated from it. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supporting the impugned award, has submitted that the appellant has failed to prove the factum of accident against the alleged truck No. MPT 8528 by any admissible evidence, merely, on the basis of papers of criminal case as exhibited in record, the claim could not be entertained. He further contended that the lack of material evidence, the claim has been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal and it cannot be allowed at this stage even on reappreciating the evidence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. To appreciate the rival submissions, we have gone through the record. He further contended that the lack of material evidence, the claim has been rightly dismissed by the Tribunal and it cannot be allowed at this stage even on reappreciating the evidence and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. To appreciate the rival submissions, we have gone through the record. We have found sufficient evidence showing that Khunnilal died in a road accident because of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the truck bearing registration No. MPT 3528. Although, it appears that on lodging, the FIR Ex. P/2 by one Ram Kumar the truck number was mentioned as CPS 8528, there is no doubt that wrong series was mentioned in it as CPS instead the MPT. It is apparent on record. It is that discernible that during investigation Police has found that such an accident had taken place the truck No. MPT 8528 was involved. The said truck and its papers were seized by seizure memo, Ex. P/4. The bicycle of the deceased was also seized by seizure memo, Ex. P/3 while the truck was registered in the name of the respondent No. 2 as per registration, Ex. P/6. The aforesaid papers of the criminal case were produced and proved on behalf of the appellant by examining her mother Smt. Lilawati (AW-1), The same have not been rebutted on behalf of the respondents in any manner, on a perusal the aforesaid papers, the evidence put fourth on behalf of the appellants appears to be reliable. Besides in the absence of any evidence and non-examination of respondent No. 1 and 2 in rebuttal of it, we find sufficient circumstance to draw adverse inference against the respondent for holding that the alleged accident was the consequence of the accident due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1 while driving the said truck. The aforesaid view is fortified by the decision of this Court in the matter of Gulla Kharagjit Carpenter v. Narsingh Nandkishore Rawat reported in AIR 1970 MP 225 in which it was held as under :- "When a material fact is within the knowledge of a party and he does not go into the witness box without any plausible reason, an adverse inference must be drawn against him. A presumption must be drawn against a party who having knowledge of the fact in dispute does not go into the witness box, particularly when a prima facie case has been made out against him." 11. The provisions for Motor Vehicle Act regarding compensation have been enacted for dispensing social justice to victims of it. Thus, on account of some minor mistakes or technicalities, the claimants could not be deprived for the benefit of it. Some time the mistake in mentioning the exact number of the vehicle in lodging the FIR could take place due to oversight or on account of some human error but mere on this count the claim petition cannot be thrown over board if the exact number of vehicle is proved by other circumstances. This question was answered by this Court earlier in the case of Narendrakumar v. Ku. Shakubai, AIR 1988 MP 197 wherein it was held as under :- "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal as well as the cross-objection deserve to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the identity of the bus in question has not been established. The basis of his contention is that the First Information Report dated 6-6-1981 (Ex.C/2) mentioned the number of the bus as MPO-5059 instead of MPU-5059. However, the First Information Report also mentions that the bus belonged to Pawan Travels' The description, therefore, sufficiently fixes the identity of the bus in question and minor mistake apparently due to oversight in mentioning the letter 'O' instead of 'U' can be of no help to the appellant for disputing the identity and involvement of the bus in question in the accident. The contention is, therefore, devoid of substance and is rejected." 12. In view of the aforesaid, it is held that the Tribunal has committed grave error in dismissing the claim of the appellant. 13. Now we shall proceed to deal with the question. As per findings of the Tribunal deceased was earning Rs. 500 per month. But in view of the provision of Motor Vehicle Act it's scheduled enacted under Section 163-A of the Act which provides the method for assessing the compensation. 13. Now we shall proceed to deal with the question. As per findings of the Tribunal deceased was earning Rs. 500 per month. But in view of the provision of Motor Vehicle Act it's scheduled enacted under Section 163-A of the Act which provides the method for assessing the compensation. Although such Section is not directly applicable to the case at hand in the absence of any other provision in this regard, we deem it fit to follow the same for assessing the compensation. According to it even for non earning person his income should be taken as Rs. 15000 per year. The same is taken up by us for consideration leaving aside the findings of the Tribunal in this regard. Then firstly we have to deduct 1/3rd amount regarding expenses of the deceased which would have been spent by him, had he been alive. Hence the dependency of the appellant comes to Rs. 10,000 per year and in view of the age of the deceased 28 years, as held by the Tribunal, the multiplier of 18 is applicable. On applying the same the total contribution would come Rs. 10,000 x 18 = 1,80,000. Besides this the appellant is also entitled to Rs. 2000/- for the funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- for loss of estate. Accordingly total compensation comes to Rs. 1,80,000 + 2000 + 2500 = 1,84,500 (one lac eighty four thousand and five hundered only). 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is set aside and the appellant is awarded Rs. 1,84,500/- (one lac eighty four thousand and five hundred only) as compensation. The said sum shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of initiation of the claim i.e. 18-11-1993 till realization of the same. The liability to indemnify the same is held against all the respondents severally and jointly. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.