JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This appeal arises out of an order dated 3.6.1996 pased by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short the "Tribunal") vide which the claim petition flied by the claimants was dismissed. 2. The brief leading to the filing of the claim before the Tribunal were that on 14th of August, 1993 at about 9.30 p.m. Giana Ram - a rickshaw puller was coming from Indri to Ladwa on his rickshaw. A truck bearing registration No. HNE 2180 alleged to be driven by Sukhwinder Singh, respondent No. 1, in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit the rickshaw near Bus Stand of Village Andhgarh. Due to the impact of the accident, Giana Ram fell down on the road and the truck ran over him, as a result of which he died on the spot. The rickshaw was also badly damaged. DDR No. 28 dated 15.8.1993 was lodged at Police Station, Indri, after two days. It was the case of the claimants that after about two days Sat Pal and Raj Kumar told the brother of the deceased that at the time of the accident they were coming on their cycles from Indri. They noticed truck No. HNE 2180 being driven by respondent No. 1 which came from the side of Indri, and had hit against the rickshaw from the back side. On these allegations the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lakhs was claimed. The claim was contested by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the offending truck on the ground that the claim petition was not maintainable and claimants had no locus standi to file the same. It was also the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that no accident had taken place with the truck in question and the object of the claim petition was to extract money from them. The allegations on merits were also denied. The case set up by respondent No. 1 was that on 13th and 14th of August, 1993 the truck in question remained in truck union at Yamuna Nagar and was at call list No. 42 and 32 respectively. The allegations on merits were also denied. The case set up by respondent No. 1 was that on 13th and 14th of August, 1993 the truck in question remained in truck union at Yamuna Nagar and was at call list No. 42 and 32 respectively. The respondent No. 3 i.e. insurance company filed a separate written statement by raising a preliminary objection that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving licence and also the claim petition was bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the accident in question was result of rash and negligent driving of truck No. HNE 2180 by respondent No. 1 as alleged ? OPP 2. Whether Giana Ram died of the injuries received by him in the said accident, if so, it effect ? OPP 3. To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled and from whom ? OPP 4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR 5. Whether the claimants have no cause of action ? OPR 6. Whether the vehicle was being driven by its driver without holding valid driving licence, if so, its effect ? OPR 7. Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder of parties ? OPR 8. Relief." 3. The claimants in support of their claim produced Ram Lal, PW-1, Raj Kumar, PW-2, Jagdish Chand, PW-3 and closed their evidence. They also produced documentary evidence in support of their contention. On the other hand, no evidence was led by the respondents. The insurance company tendered in evidence the insurance policy and closed its evidence. 4. The learned Tribunal decided issue No. 1 against the claimants by holding as under :- "I have heard both the counsel and have perused the record. The story put forth by the claimants does not sound to reasoning. PW-2 who has been examined as eye witness, has shown unnatural conduct. His version that the truck HNE 2180 coming from behind at high speed hit rickshaw puller, caused it (sic) and stopped at a distance of 4 or 5 is improbable. Both the versions are contrary to each other. Had the truck been rash and at high speed it could not have stopped after covering distance of 4 or 5 particularly when the truck is loaded. Both the versions are contrary to each other. Had the truck been rash and at high speed it could not have stopped after covering distance of 4 or 5 particularly when the truck is loaded. Secondly, it is again unnatural conduct of the witness that the witness just noticed the truck number without caring for injured and went ahead to his house. The matter does not end there. The manner in which the truck in question is being involved is again highly improbable. PW-2 says that after 2 or 3 days of the accident while they were taking tea at tea shop some persons were discussing about the accident when they disclosed number of the truck which caused accident to Ram Lal whom they knew earlier. Had that been true there was no difficulty for them to disclose accident on the same day as real brother of Ram Lal has died whom they knew earlier. This witness who was accompanied by one Sat Pal they did not try to catch the driver nor they informed about the accident to any of their family members PW-1 Ram had gone ahead of them. He has deposed that on getting information at about 3 or 4 a.m. he reached the spot at about 5 a.m. and found his brother lying dead and truck being parked there. He has also deposed that the police was present at the spot. At the same time he has deposed that police told that the truck which caused the accident had run away from the spot. He has further deposed that he had gone to Ladwa where he was taking tea where two boys informed him that they had seen truck which caused the accident, whereupon matter was reported to the police. The DDR with regard to the accident has been lodged by one Mohd. Anur. He has not mentioned anything in his statement that so truck caused the accident not only that the claimants have mentioned number of DDR in the claim petition, however, they have not examined Mohd. Anur who is stated to have witnessed the accident and lodged DDR to identify the truck. He was best person who could at least identify the truck even though he has not recorded number of the truck. Ram Lal deposed that he moved applications Ex. P1 to P4 to the S.P., Home Minister and Chief Minister. Anur who is stated to have witnessed the accident and lodged DDR to identify the truck. He was best person who could at least identify the truck even though he has not recorded number of the truck. Ram Lal deposed that he moved applications Ex. P1 to P4 to the S.P., Home Minister and Chief Minister. None of these applications have been sent through registered post and are only through U.P.C. The record has not been summoned from concerned authorities having sent these applications. Therefore, the applications cannot be taken as authenticated proof of their have been sent. Merely because the truck in question happened to enter municipal limit of Ladwa on 15.8.1993 the liability cannot be fastened. The accident is stated to have been caused on 14.8.1993 at 9.30 p.m. PW1 Ram Lal real brother of the deceased has stated that truck was parked by the side of the deceased when he reached the post at 5 a.m. While truck No. HNE 2180 as per record of Octroi Moharrir entered municipal limit at 4.45 a.m. How could be truck be at the site as well as the barrier of municipal limits. Many persons might have collected as usually happens at the place of accident and none has been examined to corroborate that the truck which caused the accident was at the spot. Under the circumstances the claimants have failed to connect that respondent No. 1 while driving truck No. HNE 2180 caused the accident. issue No. 1 decided against the claimants and in favour of respondents." 5. On issue No. 2 the learned Tribunal held that Shri Giana Ram had died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It was also held by the learned Tribunal that truck No. HNE 2180 had not caused the said accident. On issue No. 3, no findings were recorded and it was merely held that the claimants were not entitled to any compensation. In view of the findings recorded on issue No. 1, issue Nos. 4, 5 and 7 were decided against the respondent No. 3. Resultantly, as referred to above, the claim petition was dismissed. 6. Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants, challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal by asserting that there were no reasons for the Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of Raj Kumar, PW-2, who was an eye-witness to the accident. Resultantly, as referred to above, the claim petition was dismissed. 6. Mr. V.B. Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants, challenged the findings of the learned Tribunal by asserting that there were no reasons for the Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of Raj Kumar, PW-2, who was an eye-witness to the accident. The examination-in-chief of the said witness reads as under :- "On 14.8.1993 I and my friend Sat Pal were going from Khera to Ladwa on cycles. A rickshaw was going ahead of us near village Andhgarh. A truck No. HNE 2180 came from behind at very fast speed and hit the rickshaw puller from behind. The truck after causing the accident stopped just at some distance. In the meanwhile we noticed the number of the truck and we did not stop and went from there. It was about 9 or 9.30 p.m. We did not stop there due to fear of investigation etc. Wooden boxes were loaded in the truck. After 2 or 3 days of the accident when we were taking tea at the shop of tea vendor some persons were talking about the accident. We got noted the number of the truck which caused the accident to Ram Lal. I know Ram Lal. The police did not come to me." 7. It would be noticed in the cross-examination that the witness had given the model of the truck as well as its number. Learned Tribunal disbelieved him on the ground that his conduct was un-natural. In my opinion, learned counsel for the appellant-claimants was right in asserting that merely for want of report to the Police due to fear of investigation, could not be said to be unnatural conduct to disbelieve his testimony especially when the driver of the truck did not enter the witness box to deny the allegation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the evidence of PW-3, in fact, clinches, the whole matter. PW-3 was a Chungi Moharrir (Octroi Clerk) at Ladwa, who on the basis of the record of Rahdari i.e. Octroi register, deposed that at 4.45 p.m. a truck bearing No. HNE 2180 came from Delhi loaded with fresh fruits and out of the said fruits some were unloaded at Ladwa and rahdari was issued for the remaining goods. The quantity of goods was mentioned to be 85 Qtls. The quantity of goods was mentioned to be 85 Qtls. He also gave the details about the entry of this truck. According to him, the said truck entered from chungi No. 8-A and went outside through Chungi No. 5-A. The name of the driver was mentioned as Sukhwinder Singh i.e. Respondent No. 1. The entries of rahdari register were exhibited as Exhibits P-9 and P-10. PW-1 Ram Lal, brother of the deceased, was examined to prove that the deceased was a rickshaw puller and that the claimants were his family i.e. wife and children. He proved on record the application made to higher authorities with regard to the accident in the cross-examination. He also deposed that the income of the deceased was Rs. 100/- to Rs. 125/- per day. The evidence brought on record does not, in my opinion, support the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the claimants. The evidence brought on record by the claimants has to be read with respect to the stand taken by the respondents before the Tribunal as well as the evidence led by them in support of their version. In the present case, it would be seen that the positive sand of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was of alibi on the plea that the truck was at truck union, Yamuna Nagar on 13th and 14th August, 1993. This stand was not supported by any documentary evidence by the respondents, rather the evidence of PW-3, who had no interest in the present dispute, clinches the issue whether the defence raised by the respondents was misplaced, otherwise also, there was nothing on record to prove that there was any motive for him to falsely implicate respondent No. 1-Sukhwinder Singh, by ignoring the real wrong doer. Once the factum of accident and death of Giana Ram is proved on record and admitted by the learned Tribunal, it was not appropriate on the part of the Tribunal to brush aside the positive evidence brought on record on the basis of presumption and conjectures especially when in view of the documentary evidence, brought on record i.e. by way of octroi receipts, belied the story put up by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Vaijanti and others, 1995 ACJ 560 to contend that because of non-examination of the truck driver, an adverse inference was required to be raised against the respondents. Para 13 of the said judgment reads as under :- "Besides, the owner and the insurance company were having opportunity to produce the driver to establish that there was no rash and negligent act of the driver of the truck, more particularly when the issue No. 1(b) was raised by the Tribunal. No reason has been assigned by the owner and the insurance company for non-examination of the truck driver. In accident cases, it is absolutely necessary to have the first hand report from the driver. It may be that the driver does not always speak the truth, but the drivers version is the one which is to be given the best consideration. He also knows as to what actually happened. Therefore, the driver having not been examined, necessarily, an adverse inference arises against him. (See the decision of this Court in Rani Hemant Kumariji v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 1974 ACJ 284 (MP) and in K.K. Jain v. Masroor Anwar, 1990 ACJ 299 (MP). Therefore, in the circumstances, the finding recorded on issue Nos. 1(a) and 1(b) that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident, is based on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties. Hence, no interference is warranted in appeal." He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Dina Nath and others v. Tara Chand & Sons and others, 1981 ACJ 428, wherein it was held that because of non-production of car driver as a witness, a presumption has to be drawn in favour of the claimants. Para 5 of the said judgment reads as under :- "In the instant case, however, there appears to be no legal basis for accepting the submission made by Mr. Puri whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence or not could be established from the evidence of driver of the car. The driver of the car has not been produced as a witness. Puri whether the deceased was guilty of contributory negligence or not could be established from the evidence of driver of the car. The driver of the car has not been produced as a witness. For this reason alone, it would be open to me to draw a presumption against the respondents that had the driver been produced as a witness, the claim of the contributory negligence would have been negatived on the basis of this evidence. Since the parents of the deceased did not enter the witness box to depose about their extent of dependency, the total amount shall be payable to the widow and three minor children of the deceased in equal shares. They shall be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from the date when the claim application was filed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with costs throughout." 10. This Court agrees with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that non-examination of truck driver i.e. respondent No. 1 by the respondents was fatal and a presumption had to be drawn regarding his involvement in the accident. It is not disputed that he was the driver of truck No. HNE 2180. Therefore, the findings on issue No. 1 are reversed and the same is decided in favour of the claimants. It is also held that the accident in question was a result of rash and negligent driving of the said truck which was being driven by respondent No. 1-Sukhwinder Singh. 11. On issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal held that Giana Ram had died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. However, last para of the said findings cannot be sustained in view of reversal of evidence on issue No. 1. Though, no finding has been recorded on issue No. 3, however, this Court does not think that it would serve any purpose to remand the matter for adjudication as the findings can be recorded on the basis of the evidence available on record by this Court in appeal. It is not in dispute that the deceased was only a rickshaw puller. It was claimed that he was earning Rs. 100/- to Rs. 125/- daily. This statement cannot be believed especially in view of the fact that it only came in the cross-examination and not in examination-in-chief. It is not in dispute that the deceased was only a rickshaw puller. It was claimed that he was earning Rs. 100/- to Rs. 125/- daily. This statement cannot be believed especially in view of the fact that it only came in the cross-examination and not in examination-in-chief. Therefore, this Court has to assess the income by treating him to be an able bodied man capable of earning. In view of this, the income of the deceased cannot be taken to be more than Rs. 1,500/- per month and out of this, a sum of Rs. 500/- must have been spent by him on his personal needs. Therefore, this Court assesses the dependency at Rs. 1,000/- per month. The deceased was said to be 35 years of age at the time of the accident. This is a bare statement and there is no evidence on record to prove this fact. Therefore, it should be presumed that he was more than 35 years of age. Therefore, it would be safe to apply a multiplier of 16 and not 17 in this case. Accordingly, findings on issue No. 3 are reversed and the claimants are held entitled to a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,92,000/-. They would also be entitled to interest @ 7 per cent on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. Besides this, claimants shall also be entitled to Rs. 5,000/- on account of consortium. Thus the total amount of compensation payable to the claimants comes to Rs. 1,97,000/-. All the respondents are held jointly and severally responsible for making the payment of the compensation. In view of what has been stated above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 3.6.1996 is set aside and the claimants are held entitled to the amount referred to above with 7% per annum interest from the date of claim petition till realization. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.