JUDGMENT :- The claim petition of the appellants herein for grant of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased, who is the husband of the first appellant, was dismissed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Vijayawada by its order dated 4.10.2000 on the ground that the claimants failed to establish the accident. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for disposal of this appeal are stated as follows : It is alleged that the deceased Abdul Rawoof was engaged by the third respondent as a driver for transporting the lorry chassis to be delivered at Hyderabad to the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. On 11.9.1996 while the deceased and other drivers of the lorries were going from Nidamanuru Yard and when they reached Gundrampalli of Chityal a Mandal, they stopped their vehicles on the left road margin to have tea and after taking tea, the deceased came to his lorry and stood behind his chassis nearby the rear tyres, the driver of Chassis No.AP 16T 902 came to his chassis and started the same without observing the deceased, who stood behind his chassis, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result, he was crushed and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to a private nursing home at Choutappal and after giving first aid, he was shifted to Vijayawada for better treatment and got admitted in Prasanthi Urology Centre and while undergoing treatment he died on 17.9.1996. 3. The first respondent-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation disputing the contents of the petition contended that no such accident took place in transporting the chassis; that there is no cause of action to file the petition and that therefore the first respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent-insurance company also filed a written statement disputing the contents of the petition and contending that the petition is not maintainable. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal- (1) Whether the deceased Abdul Rawoof died in a motor accident on 11.9.1996 due to the rash and negligence of the driver of lorry AP 16T 902 ? (2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident ? 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal- (1) Whether the deceased Abdul Rawoof died in a motor accident on 11.9.1996 due to the rash and negligence of the driver of lorry AP 16T 902 ? (2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident ? (3) To what amount the petitioners are entitled towards compensation from whom ? (4) To what relief? 5. To substantiate the case of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked. The Tribunal having placed reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the documents filed on behalf of the claimants came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to establish that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident and dismissed the petition. Now the points for determination in this appeal are- (1) Whether the deceased Abdul Rawoof died in a motor accident on 11.9.1996 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP 16T 902 ? (2) What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident ? (3) To what amount the petitioners are entitled towards compensation and from whom ? (4) To what relief? 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that simply because PW2 has not given any report to the police that does not mean that no accident took place and the failure on the part of the hospital authorities to intimate the police cannot be attributed to the claimants; that the evidence of PW2 is very clear that the deceased sustained injuries in a road accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offering vehicle; that the deceased was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month towards salary and therefore, prays to set aside the impugned order and award compensation as prayed for. 7. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-insurance company vehemently contended that after giving cogent reasons, the Tribunai gave a categorical finding that the accident has not been proved by the claimants and that there was abnormal delay in lodging the complaint to the police; that PW2 did not give any report to the police; that even the authorities of the hospital, in which the deceased was got admitted, did not give any intimation to the police about the accident and that the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal need not be interfered with and he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Point No.1 : There cannot be any dispute that the claimants have to prove that the accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The accident is seriously disputed by the respondents. PW1 is no other than the wife of the deceased. Admittedly she is not an eyewitness to the accident, but her evidence would clearly go to show that her husband died seven days after the accident while he was undergoing treatment in Nagarjuna Hospital. It is suggested to her that only respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation, but the same is denied. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question is validly insured with the second respondent. To prove the accident, PW2 is examined. According to him, he was working as a driver since 25 years. He was transporting chassis vehicles from Vijayawada to Hyderabad for Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation. On the date of the accident in all 13 chassis were being taken to Hyderabad. He also stated that the deceased Rawoof died in a motor accident due to the negligent driving of the driver of Chassis No.AP l6T 902. According to him, the injured was shifted to Hospital at Choutappal. After giving first aid, the doctor advised them to shift the injured either to Vijayawada or to Hyderabad. Thereafter the injured was taken to Vijayawada in a car, admitted in Prasanthi Urology Centre, later he was shifted to Nagarjuna Hospital. Two weeks thereafter, while undergoing treatment, the injured died. PW2 admitted in the cross-examination that himself and the deceased were working as a daily labourers under respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 would have to pay the remuneration whatever they have undertaken. Two weeks thereafter, while undergoing treatment, the injured died. PW2 admitted in the cross-examination that himself and the deceased were working as a daily labourers under respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 would have to pay the remuneration whatever they have undertaken. Three vehicles were stopped for tea i.e., the vehicle of the deceased, vehicle of PW2 and vehicle of the accused. PW2 admitted that he did not give any report to the police. It is also suggested to him that the deceased was not having any driving licence, but the same is denied. It is also suggested to him that no accident took place, but the same is also denied. EX.A 1 is the attested copy of the First Information Report, which was initially received by Penamalur police. On receipt of death intimation from Nagarjuna Hospital, on the point of jurisdiction, it was transferred to Chityal a Police Station on 29.9.1996. The report was lodged by Nagarjuna Hospital authorities, wherein it is clearly stated that Abdul Rawoof was brought to hospital on 13.9.1996 around 1 p.m. as he sustained injuries in a road accident and the relatives of the patient stated that the deceased was taking lorry chassis from Vijayawada to Hyderabad and P. Rahmed, driver of another chassis, rashly and negligently drove the chassis and dashed against the deceased. The deceased was first referred to Urology Centre, Vijayawada and later he was referred to Nagarjuna Hospital. This report is accompanied by the statement of PW2, which would clearly go to show that PW2 and the deceased were taking chassis vehicles from Vijayawada to Hyderabad and the vehicles were stopped near Gundrampalli, as the drivers intended to take tea by the side of the road and while the deceased was standing behind the rear left side wheel of his vehicle, P. Rahmed, driver of another chassis, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result the deceased sustained injuries and was taken to a nearby hospital and later shifted to Vijayawada. The earliest version of PW2 is completely in corroboration with his evidence. No doubt there was delay in lodging the report with the police, but at the same time, it cannot be said that time was taken with a view to foist a false case against the accused. PW2 is an independent witness. The earliest version of PW2 is completely in corroboration with his evidence. No doubt there was delay in lodging the report with the police, but at the same time, it cannot be said that time was taken with a view to foist a false case against the accused. PW2 is an independent witness. He is neither related to the deceased nor inimical to the accused so as to implicate him falsely. The earliest version of PW2 would clearly go to show that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Chassis No.AP 16T 902. If no such accident had taken place as contended by the respondents, certainly original of EX.A 1 would not have been come into light. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the registration of the crime, the police investigated into the same and also filed charge-sheet against the driver of the chassis. No doubt the criminal case was got abated, as the accused, who caused the accident, died on 15.12.2001. The same is not disputed. Therefore, the registration of the case and the subsequent investigation conducted by the police would clearly establish that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Chassis No.AP 16T 902. On the ground that none of the relatives or PW2 or the hospital authorities did not give any report to the police, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to establish the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the chassis. But in view of the evidence of PW2, who is a disinterested witness, coupled with the earliest version of the accident as stated by him in his statement, would clearly reveal that an accident had taken place on 11.9.1996, in which the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the chassis. Accordingly the point is answered. 9. Point Nos.2 to 4 : Coming to determination of the quantum of compensation, PW1 stated that the deceased was getting Rs.2,000/- per month besides Rs.30/- per day towards batta. According to her, the deceased was aged about 45 years. Ex.A2, inquest report and Ex.A5, post-mortem report also show that the deceased was aged about 45 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 13'. It is not in dispute, that the deceased worked as a driver. According to her, the deceased was aged about 45 years. Ex.A2, inquest report and Ex.A5, post-mortem report also show that the deceased was aged about 45 years. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier would be 13'. It is not in dispute, that the deceased worked as a driver. According to PW1, he was getting Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month towards salary. Therefore, for determination of compensation, the monthly income of the deceased can be safely taken at Rs.2,000/per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, his monthly contribution to the family would come to Rs.l,333/-. The appellants are entitled to Rs.2,07,948/- (Rs.1,333 x 12 x 13) towards loss of earnings. They are also entitled to Rs.9,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages. In all they are entitled to Rs.2,16,948/towards compensation. But as they claimed Rs.2,00,000/- only towards compensation, hence the appeal is allowed granting the appellants compensation of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees two lakhs only) payable with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization.