JUDGMENT:- Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No.622/1994, rejecting the claim petition, the present appeal was filed by the original claimants. 2. In support of the appeal, learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal committed an error in denying the relief to the claimants only on the ground that victim - Kashiram must have died not because of accident but because of negligence in the treatment on the part of medical officers in treating him as he died because of hepatitic failure. According to learned Counsel for the appellants this was neither the case of any of the parties to the claim petition nor any evidence was adduced to that effect before the Tribunal and that is nothing but pure imagination on the part of the Tribunal. He then invited my attention to the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the driver of the jeep was rash and negligent in driving the jeep and knocking the deceased Kashiram from behind and during the course of treatment he expired within period of five days. He, therefore, argued that the rejection of claim by the Tribunal is wholly wrong and illegal and therefore, the claim made by the claimants in their claim petition on four grounds totaling Rs.4.00,000/- will have to be granted with interest thereon @ 18% per annum. 3. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and prayed for dismissal of the same. 4. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award recorded by the Tribunal so also the pleadings and evidence on record. Perusal of the written statement filed by the owner and the driver of the jeep shows that jeep was insured with Oriental Insurance Company for the period from 27.1.1993 to 26.1.1994 while accident occurred on 16.8.1993 i.e. before expiry of the insurance cover. The written statement further shows that there was no breach of policy in any manner whatsoever on their part. Respondent No.2 Insurance Company has also filed reply and the whole reply is in the form of denial. There is no allegation that the insurance cover was not valid or that there was any breach of policy in the reply. 5. No evidence was adduced by any of the respondents and the claimants and one Gomaji brother of deceased - Kashiram were examined. There is no allegation that the insurance cover was not valid or that there was any breach of policy in the reply. 5. No evidence was adduced by any of the respondents and the claimants and one Gomaji brother of deceased - Kashiram were examined. Perusal of the impugned judgment recorded by the Tribunal shows that it has categorically held in paragraph No.8 that the accident in question occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the driver of the jeep and deceased - Kashiram was knocked down from behind by the said jeep and further that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased Kashiram. This finding is not under challenge and I have no difficulty therefore in accepting the same as it is. 6. The Tribunal thereafter found that though the accident had taken place on 16.8.1993. First Information Report was lodged on 19.8.1993 and therefore no evidence on the spot could become available. The Tribunal then found that there were as many as 16 injuries on the person of the deceased as indicated in the post-mortem report (Exh.40) and most of them were abrasions and infected injuries. The Tribunal then suddenly came to conclusion that the injuries must have been caused because of negligence in treatment by the medical officers and the death occulted because of hepatic failure and therefore. according to the Tribunal the respondents could not be held liable for such death. The fact that accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep has been found to be true and correct by the Tribunal and that finding has not been challenged before me. The fact that deceased was seriously injured with 16 injuries on his person and during treatment he died is also not disputed. The finding that most of the injuries were abrasions and inflicted injuries and therefore, negligence of the Doctors will have to be inferred is thoroughly absurd. In the first place, it was nobodys case that the death did not occur because of accident. Further no evidence was tendered on record to show that the death occurred not because of the accident but because of the medical negligence. No case was made out even in the cross-examination to that effect. In the first place, it was nobodys case that the death did not occur because of accident. Further no evidence was tendered on record to show that the death occurred not because of the accident but because of the medical negligence. No case was made out even in the cross-examination to that effect. In the absence of any materials on record to that effect, in my opinion, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to that effect is nothing but mere figment of imagination. The Tribunal has drawn inferences on imagination in the absence of any evidence, pleadings or documents on record. The Tribunal forgot to see that even a single major internal injury can cause hepatitic failure and therefore, to reject claim in entirety on such flimsy ground is wholly unjust and has definitely caused miscarriage of justice therefore, set aside the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the death must have caused for any other reason than the accident and hold that the death was caused because of injuries suffered by the deceased - Kashiram in the accident in question. It is important to note that none of the respondents brought any pleading or evidence on record to show that the death was caused by any other incident after the accident leading to hepatic failure. 7. That the appellants - claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased is not disputed and accordingly the finding has already been recorded by the Tribunal. 8. The next question is about compensation to be awarded. It is seen from the evidence of the wife of the deceased that on the date of accident Kashiram was grazing the goats. Her evidence further shows that he used to work as labourer and also used to take fishermans contract. He also used to cultivate others land on crop share basis and thus his income from all sources was Rs.2,000/- per month. Looking to the tenor of her evidence, it appears that deceased - Kashiram was agricultural labourer with no guarantee of getting everyday work and was doing a contractor ship of fishing business or cultivating others land on crop share basis and was thus somehow supporting his family. Looking to the tenor of her evidence, it appears that deceased - Kashiram was agricultural labourer with no guarantee of getting everyday work and was doing a contractor ship of fishing business or cultivating others land on crop share basis and was thus somehow supporting his family. Looking to this kind of evidence and the fact that he was not getting regular work and had to also to take goats for grazing purposes leads me to draw an inference that his income could not be more than Rs.15,000/- per year. Deducting 1/3rd income there from for his personal expenditure, Rs.10,000/- per year would have been saved for his family during his life time. There is no dispute that his age at the time of death was 45 years. In view of his age and taking the help of Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, multiplier of 13 will have to be applied and therefore, net compensation then comes to Rs.1,30,000/-. In addition, I award compensation for loss of love and affection and consortium at Rs.6,000/- for all claimants. Further component for compensation of funeral expenses including conveyance of Rs.3,000/will have to be awarded. The expenditure incurred for medical treatment and other miscellaneous expenses therefore at Rs.3,000/ - will have to be granted. Thus, total compensation falls under the following heads. (1) 10 X multiplier of 13. :- Rs.1,30,000/-. (2) Compensation for loss of love and affection. :(3) Compensation for funeral expenses including conveyance :- Rs.3,000/-. (4) Expenses for treatment and other miscellaneous expenditure :- Rs.6,000/- for all claimants. Rs.3,000/-. Total: Rs.1,42,000/- In addition, simple interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs.1,42,000/- will have to be granted. Since jeep was insured, the award will have to be made joint and several against the respondents. For these reasons, therefore, I make the following order. ORDER (i) First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 16.8.2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No.622/1994 is set aside. (iii) Claim Petition No.622/1994 is allowed in part. (iv) The respondents i.e. respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally held liable for making payment of compensation of Rs.1,42,000/- (Rupees One Lac Forty Two Thousand Only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till recovery thereof with costs of this appeal throughout. Appeal allowed.