JUDGMENT: This Appeal has been filed preferred by the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.442 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The deceased by name Yellamma is the mother of the petitioners. On 05-03- 2007 at about 6-00 AM, the deceased was proceeding by walk to Hotel Sherton to have a cup of tea. On reaching Quardri Bagh Cross Roads, an RTC bus, proceeding from Sri Ramana Theatre to Central Bus Station, came with high speed being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, which resulted in grievous injuries to her. The deceased was shifted to the Osmania General Hospital and while undergoing treatment in the hospital, she died on the next day, therefore, the petitioners claimed Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation. 3. The respondents resisted the claim by contending that no accident took place as contended by the petitioners. They also denied that the petitioners are not the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, they requested to dismiss the petition with costs. 4. The Tribunal considered the entire evidence and came to a conclusion that the petitioners failed to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased and there is no evidence to show that there was rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, therefore, the petition was dismissed. 5 . Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred the present Appeal contending that though PW-1 is an eyewitness to the accident, the lower Court erred in coming to a conclusion that no eyewitness was examined and the evidence of PW-1 indicates that the petitioners are the daughters of the deceased. 6. In the light of the above circumstances, the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside and whether the claimants are entitled for compensation as prayed for? 7. PW-1 in the chief examination stated that while her mother was proceeding by walk at the cross roads of Amberpet, an RTC bus came and dashed against her. She was shifted to Osmania Hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. In the cross-examination, she stated that on the date of accident, the deceased and herself were returning after taking tea and while crossing the road, the deceased was just behind her. She was shifted to Osmania Hospital, where she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. In the cross-examination, she stated that on the date of accident, the deceased and herself were returning after taking tea and while crossing the road, the deceased was just behind her. In the meantime, an RTC bus came with high speed and dashed against the deceased. 8. The Tribunal observed that the petitioners simply stated in Para No.2 of the petition that the deceased was proceeding on walk to have a cup of tea in Sherton Hotel and at that time, an RTC bus came with high speed and dashed against the deceased. There is no mention that PW-1 was along with the deceased at the relevant point of time. The contention that PW-1 was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident is a development and it came on record for the first time in the chief examination. Except the sole testimony of PW-1, there is no evidence placed by the petitioners to prove the accident. There is no reason as to why any eyewitness was not examined. In the complaint, which was registered as FIR, there is no mention that PW-1 was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident, therefore, mere fact that she was shown as eyewitness in the charge sheet cannot be taken into consideration. 9. The Tribunal further observed that the petitioners failed to file any legal heirs certificate and there is no evidence to establish that they are the legal heirs of the deceased, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to compensation. 10. Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR, wherein it was mentioned that the accident occurred at 6-00 AM and the crime was registered at 9-30 AM. The statement of the claimants was recorded by the Head Constable at the Osmania General Hospital, which was taken as the complaint in registering the crime. In the said complaint, PW-1 stated that the deceased has nobody, therefore, she was residing in her house. On 05-03-2008 at about 6-00 AM, the deceased went to Sherton Hotel at Quardri Bagh to take a cup of tea and while crossing the road, an RTC bus came and dashed against her. She received bleeding injuries to the head, leg and eye. On 05-03-2008 at about 6-00 AM, the deceased went to Sherton Hotel at Quardri Bagh to take a cup of tea and while crossing the road, an RTC bus came and dashed against her. She received bleeding injuries to the head, leg and eye. In the meanwhile, 108 ambulance came there and the deceased was lifted and taken to the Osmania General Hospital and the doctors were treating her. 11. In Ex.A-3, inquest report, the inquest panchas observed that on 05-03-2007 at about 6-00 AM, the deceased while crossing the main road at Amberpet, a bus came with high speed and dashed against her resulting in bleeding injuries to her. She was shifted to the Osmania General Hospital and she died while undergoing treatment. In column No.II (b) of the Inquest Report, which was prepared on the next day of the death of the deceased, the first petitioner was mentioned as eldest daughter and the second petitioner was mentioned as younger daughter of the deceased. There is no contrary evidence placed by the respondents to deny the said relationship and to prove that they are not the daughters of the deceased Yellamma. 12. So far as the rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus is concerned, the deceased was about 70 years old, therefore, she cannot cross the road by running. When the driver of the RTC bus was driving the vehicle at cross roads, he is expected to take all precautions to see that any pedestrians is likely to suddenly emerge into the road. It is not the case that the deceased died due to some other cause. The inquest report is clearly indicating that the deceased died due to accident. The driver of the bus did not enter the witness box to speak under what circumstances the accident occurred and why he could not control the vehicle. In the absence of any contrary material that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the Tribunal is not justified in holding that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver. Though no eyewitnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners, the circumstances would disclose that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus. Though no eyewitnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners, the circumstances would disclose that the accident occurred due to rashness and negligence of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal observed that the claimants did not mention their relationship in the claim petition and they mentioned for the first time through PW-1 in the evidence. But, their relationship has been mentioned in Ex.A-3, inquest report, which was prepared on the second day of the accident, therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are the daughters of the deceased and they are entitled for compensation. 13. Though the petitioners claimed Rs.3,00,000/- by contending that the deceased used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month, they did not adduce any evidence as to what is the occupation of the deceased and on what sources, she was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased was 70 years old, therefore, there is no possibility of applying any multiplier. 14. In the light of the above circumstances, I am of the view that it would be just and reasonable if the petitioners are awarded no fault liability compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The order of the Tribunal, dated 26-03-2008 is set aside. The O.P. is allowed in part by awarding Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability compensation to the petitioners to which they are entitled to equally. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization with proportionate costs. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally made liable to pay the compensation amount with six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the petitioners are at liberty to file E.P. for realization of the said amount.