JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 14.12.1992 passed in claim case No. 24 of 1992 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) whereby the application for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth, the Act) was dismissed on the ground that the appellants/claimants had failed to establish that death of Nanhu Bai @ Ganeshi Bai, aged 7 years, resulted due to collision with the Truck No.M.P.Z. 8721 (henceforth, the Truck). 2. Brief facts are that on 16.05.1991 Nanhu Bai @ Ganeshi Bai was riding a bicycle driven by Mayadass. The respondent No.2 Niyaz Ali drove the Truck in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the cycle by the rear side of the truck, resulting in death of Nanhu Bai @ Ganehsi Bai. 3. It is not disputed in this appeal that the Truck belonged to respondent No.1, Sub-Divisional Officer, Water Resources Department, Gharghoda, District Raigarh and was owned by the State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also not disputed that at the relevant time the Truck was being driven by respondent No.2. 4. The learned M.A.C.T. dismissed the application under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the claimants had failed to prove death of Nanhu Bai @ Ganeshi Bai resulted due to collision with the Truck driven by respondent No.2 herein. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding recorded by the M.A.C.T. is perverse because the M.A.C.T. did not take into consideration the fact that in reply to the application under Section 140 of the Act for grant of interim compensation on principles of no fault liability, the respondents had admitted that death of Ganeshi Bai on 16.05.1991 had resulted due to collision with theTruck. It was further contended that the M.A.C.T. did not take into consideration the admission made by respondent No.2/driver in cross- examination that he was informed by the helper who was sitting in the truck that the bicycle was dashed by the rear side of the truck. 6. Shri S.S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 argued in support of the award. 7. Having heard the rival submissions, I have perused the record. 6. Shri S.S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 argued in support of the award. 7. Having heard the rival submissions, I have perused the record. Respondent no.2 Niyaz Ali was examined as a N.A.W.No.1 and admitted in cross-examination that the helper in the truck had told him that the accident had occurred due to collision with the rear side of the truck. He also admitted that he did not stop the truck and ran away from the scene of accident. 8. The appellants/claimants had filed an application under section 140 of the Act. In paragraph 1 of the application, it was mentioned that death of Nanhu Bai @ Ganeshi Bai on 16.05.1991 was as a result of the collision with Truck. In reply to this Application, the respondents had admitted the contents of the above paragraph. In this manner, the fact of accidental death of Ganeshi Bai on 16.05.1991 due to collision with the Truck driven by respondent No.2 was an admitted fact in the claim case. In this view of the matter, the finding recorded by the M.A.C.T. is perverse and is set aside. It is held that death of Ganesh Bai on 16.05.1991 was caused due to collision with the Truck driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner. 9. The application under Section 166 of the Act was filed in the year 1991. A period of about 16 years has elapsed, during which the claimants have been deprived of the compensation, which ought to have been awarded. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the parties agreed that just and reasonable compensation be determined by this Court instead of remanding the case. 10. In awarding just and reasonable compensation, the following circumstances were considered: i) the age of the deceased, ii) the date of accident, iii) the fact that on the date of accident, the claimants were not dependents in any manner on the deceased, iv) the fact that soon after her marriage, Ganeshi Bai would have gone to her matrimonial home to live with her husband, and v) that even an amount of Rs.25,000/- statutorily payable in case of death under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 16.05.1991, if paid in 1991 and deposited in any nationalized bank, would have multiplied six times in 16 years. 11. 11. Taking into consideration the above, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is awarded to the claimants/appellants as compensation. The Respondent No.3 shall deposit the compensation within two months along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of award til payment is made. In case of non-compliance, interest @ 9% per annum shall be paid from the date of filing of application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act till realisation. Out of the compensation awarded, Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to appellant No.3 by an account payee cheque and the remainder to the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 also by two account payee cheques, one for Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited in joint names of the claimants No.1 and 2 in the Super Saver Scheme of the State Bank of India for a period of 4 years and another for Rs.45,000/- to be deposited in their savings account. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the M.A.C.T. forthwith. The M.A.C.T. shall on deposit of compensation ensure: A. that the claimants/appellants are noticed about the award, B. that the claimants/appellants are noticed to appear before the M.A.C.T., in person along with their bank account pass book of an account in a nationalized bank, C. that the pass books of the claimants are duly verified by the photographs and also name of holders before issuance of cheque by the M.A.C.T., D. that a direction is issued to the concerned bank not to release the amount in favour of any person, other than the claimant unless ordered by the M.A.C.T., E. that Rs.5,000/- payable to Mukesh/claimant No.3 is deposited through an account payee cheque in his Savings Account.