Judgment , J. 1. The appellants-claimants have come up in this appeal against the award dated 5-10-1988, passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), whereby the claimants were held not entitled to any compensation on account of negligence on the part of the bus driver. However, they were held entitled to compensation of Rs.15,000 on account of no fault liability under Sec.92-Aof the Act, as the respondents have admitted the accident, in which Ram Rattan, since deceased received injuries and died. It was further held that the claimants have already received Rs.15,000 on the basis of no fault liability vide order of the Tribunal dated 28-9-1987. It was also held that if the aforesaid amount is not recovered earlier, then it shall be recovered by the claimant Nos.1 to 4 from the respondents, who were made liable to pay the same jointly and severally and in case, the said amount is recovered by the claimants from respondent nos.1 and 2 then they were further held entitled to recover the same from respondent no.3, who had admitted the accident having taken place due to his negligence. 2. Briefly stated, the facts as pleaded by the claimants in the claim petition are that on 16-12-1986 at about 10 a. m. , deceased Ram rattan and his son Sudhir Kumar was coming towards Khanna after visiting village Mohanpur on their respective vehicles Hero Majestic moped bearing registration No. PAN 4912 and scooter bearing registration No. PJN 2155, respectively. After entering the G. T. Road, the deceased was going on the extreme left side of the road while Sudhir Kumar was behind him. He had stopped on the way to meet a customer, when all of a sudden a bus belonging to Punjab Roadways bearing registration No. PJG 1630 of Ferozepur Depot, being driven by its driver Gurbax Singh, respondent No.3 rashly and negligently wanted to overtake the deceased from the wrong side, who was going on the correct side, hit him from behind. Consequently, the right front wheel of the bus ran over the moped, due to which, Ram Rattan succumbed to his injuries at the spot and died. A sum of Rs.10,00,000 was claimed by the claimant Nos.1 to 4 on account of the death of said Ram Rattan being wholly dependent on him. Consequently, the right front wheel of the bus ran over the moped, due to which, Ram Rattan succumbed to his injuries at the spot and died. A sum of Rs.10,00,000 was claimed by the claimant Nos.1 to 4 on account of the death of said Ram Rattan being wholly dependent on him. It was further case of the claimants that the deceased was 55 years of age at the time of the accident and was doing business of cloth merchants as a partner in the firm Ram Sarup Ram Ratan at g. T. Road, Khanna and in Rattan sons, khanna in which he had 25 percent share and 10 per cent share respectively. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their separate written statements. Respondent nos.1 and 2 admitted the accident but attributed the negligence to the deceased. It was alleged that the deceased who was riding moped no. PAN 4912, came from village lane and entered G. T. Road without caring to see if the road ahead was clear of traffic and he suddenly came in front of the bus, which was going on its correct side at a normal speed. The bus driver tried his level best to avoid the accident but could not do so. 4. Driver of the bus, respondent No.3, in his written statement dated 27-7-1987 narrated the version of accident stating that the accident had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of he deceased, who while entering the main road from the lane did not care to see if the road ahead was clear of any coming traffic. He suddenly came in front of the bus which was going on its correct side and at a normal speed. However, on 21 -8-1987, driver of the bus, respondent No.3, filed an application before the Tribunal for amendment of his written statement, which was accepted by tribunal vide its order dated 2-9-1987. In the amended written statement dated 15-9-1987, the driver of the offending bus admitted negligence. Para 8 of the amended written statement reads thus: "in reply to para 8 of the petition, it is submitted that the accident took place on 16-12-1986 at about 10 a. m. and the deceased was on a moped Hero majestic. The accident took place after crossing T junction where the road coming from village Mohanpu enters. G. T. Road. Para 8 of the amended written statement reads thus: "in reply to para 8 of the petition, it is submitted that the accident took place on 16-12-1986 at about 10 a. m. and the deceased was on a moped Hero majestic. The accident took place after crossing T junction where the road coming from village Mohanpu enters. G. T. Road. Respondent was a bit late to reach Khanna and to cover up the late, he wanted to overtake the deceased who was going on his moped. As there was rush and no space was available on the right side of the deceased, the respondent in goods faith took the vehicle bus No. PJG 1630 from the left side of the deceased. As a result of this the accident took place. In spite of best efforts of the respondent, the right hand front wheel struck with the deceased driving moped, consequent thereof the deceased died on the spot. " 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: " (1) Whether the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Gurbax Singh, driver, respondent no.3 and the deceased Ram Rattan received injuries in that accident and died on account of those injuries? op Claimants (2) If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled and from whom? OP Claimants (3) Relief. 6. The claimants-appellants examined dr. A. K. Batta, Medical Officer at Civil Hospital, khanna, as A. W.1, who had conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the injuries are possible in a roadside accident. Krishan Kumar, claimant, appeared as A. W.2 and deposed about the income of the deceased. Sudhir Kumar, claimant No.7, appeared as A. W.3, who had deposed not only about the income of the deceased, but also about the manner of accident. It was stated by him that he was present on the spot when the accident took place. Shanker Lal who appeared as A. W.4, is the Accountant of Rattan Sons, Khanna and he produced the account books for the year 1985-86 in respect of income of the firm, in which the deceased was a partner. 7. It was stated by him that he was present on the spot when the accident took place. Shanker Lal who appeared as A. W.4, is the Accountant of Rattan Sons, Khanna and he produced the account books for the year 1985-86 in respect of income of the firm, in which the deceased was a partner. 7. As against that respondents examined gurbax Singh, driver of the offending vehicle as R. W.1, who had admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was on the left side of the road at the time of the accident. Speed of the bus was 50/60 kmph, he had taken the bus on the kacha portion at the time when the deceased was run over. He had denied the suggestion that the amended written statement was filed by him in collusion with the claimants and his first written statement was correct and also a suggestion that the accident had taken place on account of negligence of the deceased. 8. On the basis of pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal decided issue No.1 pertaining to negligence against the claimants, firstly, on the ground that the presence of sudhi Kumar at the time of accident near the place of accident is not proved because he had stated that he was talking to one Gurdial singh, who has not been examined, therefore, an adverse inference has been drawn. Sudhi Kumar lodged the F. I. R. , Exh. PB, without mentioning the name of Gurdial Singh who is not even mentioned in claim petition. The Tribunal further observed that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that sudhir Kumar was present on Mohanpur link road as stated by him even then it is not expected of him to witness the accident as he has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was talking to Gurdial Singh at a point which is 50 yards from the T point, from where the link road bifurcates from G. T. Road, meaning thereby that he was at a distance of 100 yards. The Tribunal held that no person can see the accident from such a distance, especially when he is busy in talking with some other person. The Tribunal held that no person can see the accident from such a distance, especially when he is busy in talking with some other person. It was also observed that accident had taken place at 10 a. m. , but the F. I. R. was lodged at 12.40 p. m. The news with regard to the accident must have spread in city of khanna and family members of the deceased to know about it and then Sudhir Kumar lodged the F. I. R. pertaining to accident, otherwise, sudhir Kumar would have lodged the report earlier. 9. Thetribunal has further disbelieved the amended written statement filed by respondent no.3 on 15-9-1987 and admission made by him in his cross-examination on the ground that the amended written statement has been filed under the influence of the claimants for some ulterior motive and in respect of his appearance in the Court, the Tribunal observed that in the examination-in-chief, he had tried to blame the deceased but in the cross-examination, he stated that he took the bus on the kacha portion of the road and crushed the deceased. 10. Claims Tribunal has further given another reason for deciding issue No.1 against the claimants that since deceased was coming from the link road, it is the duty of the person coming from the link road to the main road to see if there is any traffic on his left or right side. It is observed that this rule does not seem to have been followed by the deceased, otherwise, he would not have entered the g. T. Road before the bus had crossed the T point. It was also observed that since the accident took place on kacha portion of the road while going from the side of Ludhiana to khanna, which means that bus driver took the bus to his extreme left side and went to the kacha portion of the road, therefore, fault was found with the deceased and it was held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the deceased and not of the bus driver. 11. While deciding the issue No.2, the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.16,648 for the year 1985-86 ending 31-3-1986, on the basis of Exhs. 11. While deciding the issue No.2, the tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.16,648 for the year 1985-86 ending 31-3-1986, on the basis of Exhs. PC and PF on the file, but this was not taken to be loss to the claimants on the ground that Luxmi devi, claimant No.1, has stepped into the shoes of the deceased in both the firms as admitted by Sudhir Kumar, AW3. 12. Finally in respect of issue No.3, since respondents were not found to be negligent, no compensation was ordered. However, a sum of Rs.15,000 was ordered as no fault liability under Sec.92-A of the Act. 13. Dissatisfied with the order of the tribunal, the claimants are in appeal before this Court. 14. Mr. G. S. Punia, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants have vehemently argued that the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2 are both illegal and deserve to be set aside. Firstly, it was contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the point that Sudhir Kumar was not present at the spot because he has not mentioned the name of Gurdial Singh in the F. I. R. and that he could not have witnessed the accident from a distance of 100 yards is erroneous. 15. Mr. G. S. Punia, the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the first information report is only aimed at intimating the occurrence to the police which cannot and does not purport to be an encyclopaedia of the facts. Therefore, non-mentioning of the name of Gurdial Singh is not fatal to the case of the appellants as it was later on mentioned in the statement of the eyewitness Sudhir Kumar. In this regard, counsel has relied upon two decisions of this Court in the cases of gurcharan Kaur V/s. Darshan Singh (2006-3)144 PLR 329 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Bala Devi, (2006-3) 144 PLR 134. He has further relied upon a decision in the case of mahipal Co-op. Society Ltd. V/s. Prabhati, 1986 acj 46 (Delhi.) 16. Arguing further, it has been submitted by Mr. Punia that the distance of 100 yards is not a long distance to witness an accident between a bus and moped on an open road. He has further relied upon a decision in the case of mahipal Co-op. Society Ltd. V/s. Prabhati, 1986 acj 46 (Delhi.) 16. Arguing further, it has been submitted by Mr. Punia that the distance of 100 yards is not a long distance to witness an accident between a bus and moped on an open road. It was also submitted that so far as the F. I. R. having been registered after 2 hours of the accident, which is considered by Tribunal as an afterthought, is not correct, it was contended that since father of the witness, Sudhir Kumar had died at the spot, his first reaction was to inform the family members and not to run to the police station for registering of the F. I. R. Therefore, the same was not unnatural. Learned counsel has further asserted that when driver of the offending bus, respondent No.3, has himself admitted in his written statement the manner in which the accident had taken place and also his negligence which was further corroborated by him when he appeared as r. W.1 before the Tribunal,pondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to allege as to what was ulterior motive on the part of respondent No.3, to have amended his written statement admitting his guilt before the Court. Mr. Punia has also referred to the photographs available on the record at pages 39 and 40 of the lower Court record pertaining to the position of offending bus and the moped. In respect of other findings that it was for the deceased to have been careful when he entered from the link road to G. T. Road, learned counsel submitted that once the driver of the bus has admitted that he was getting late and in order to cover up his timings, he took the bus on the wrong side of the deceased and in that process, the accident took place, the question of giving such finding does not arise. It was further pointed out that even the learned Tribunal has observed while deciding issue No.3, that if the amount of Rs.15,000 granted under no fault liability is recovered by the appellants from the employer, then the employer shall further be entitled to recover that amount from driver of the bus, respondent No.3, who has admitted his negligence. 17. Continuing with his submissions, mr. 17. Continuing with his submissions, mr. Punia has argued that even the compensation which has been assessed is on lower side and it has been wrongly held that once the wife has entered as a partner, then, the dependants of the deceased were not entitled to the amount compensation as there was no loss in the income of the claimants. 18. On the contrary, Mr. B. S. Chahal, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondent State has vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are just, proper and reasonable because name of Gurdial Singh was not mentioned in the F. I. R. and the claim petition, therefore, it can be presumed that the story coined by Sudhir Kumar was false, whereas the amendment of the written statement admitting the negligence by respondent no.3 is due to some ulterior motive best known to him. Further, it was contended that there was no loss which can be compensated due to death of the deceased because he has been replaced by his widow Luxmi Devi in the partnership firm. Therefore, it was submitted that the order of the Tribunal deserves to be upheld. 19. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and with their assistance have perused the record. 20. While deciding issue No.1, much reliance has been placed by the Tribunal on the fact that author of the F. I. R. Sudhir Kumar did not mention the name of Gurdial Singh with whom he was allegedly talking when the accident took place. Secondly, he was at a distance of 100 yards from the place of accident and could not have witnessed the same if he was talking to said Gurdial Singh. Thirdly, gurdial Singh was not mentioned in the claim petition and also that the F. I. R. has been registered after 21/2 hours of the accident. 21. So far as the F. I. R. is concerned, it is now well settled that it is not an encyclopaedia of all the attending facts, rather it is aimed at intimating an occurrence to the police. 21. So far as the F. I. R. is concerned, it is now well settled that it is not an encyclopaedia of all the attending facts, rather it is aimed at intimating an occurrence to the police. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural if the name of person with whom Sudhir Kumar is alleged to have been talking was not mentioned in the F. I. R. In the cases of Gurcharan Kaur, (supra) and Bala Devi (supra), which pertain to the claim filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, a similar view has been taken. Therefore I hold that non-mentioning of the name of Gurdial singh in the F. I. R. lodged by said Sudhir kumar could not be taken to be a reason for disbelieving the manner of accident. So far as the ocular version of accident is concerned, 100 yards on an open road is hardly any distance for the purpose of witnessing an accident, that too by a vehicle as big as bus. Besides these shortcomings pointed out by the Tribunal, the statement of eyewitness remain unshaken and negligence of respondent no.3 is proved especially in view of the fact that the driver of the offending bus himself had admitted the accident in the amended written statement as well as in his oral statement when he appeared before the Tribunal as r. W.1. In the event of an admission of negligence by the driver of offending vehicle, the same is proved because the driver himself took a risk of his being prosecuted in a criminal court of law as the F. I. R. was also registered against him. Therefore, no ulterior motive can be attached to his admission. 22. Moreover, from the perusal of the photographs at pages 39 and 40 of the lower court record, where the bus is shown to be on kacha portion of the road and the moped is lying under it, this Court is convinced that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus, respondent No.3. Thus, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 23. Regarding issue No.2, although income of the deceased has been assessed vide documents, Exhs. Thus, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. 23. Regarding issue No.2, although income of the deceased has been assessed vide documents, Exhs. PC and PF, to the tune of rs.16,648, but it ha been wrongly held that no loss has been caused to the income of the claimant because widow of the deceased had entered as a partner in the firm in his place. This finding is not acceptable to this Court because the deceased was earning profits in the business not merely by his presence but by his business acumen and skill, which was definitely a loss to his family and could only be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, i hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation. 24. Now the question that arises is as to how much compensation should be awarded to the appellants in the given circumstances of the case. Since the income of the deceased has already been assessed to the tune of rs.16,648, out of which, if 1/3rd is deducted for his personal expenses which comes to rs.5,548, the remaining amount of Rs.11,000 per annum is assessed as dependency of the claimants on the deceased. As the deceased was admittedly 55 years of age at the time of accident, a multiplier of 8 is appropriately applicable as per Schedule to the Motor vehicles Act. 25. Thus, compensation amount comes to Rs.88,000 besides Rs.2,000 as funeral expenses. 26. Therefore, I hold that appellants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.90,000 along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. It is, however, made clear that amount of Rs.15,000 awarded as no fault liability shall be deducted from the total amount of compensation at the time of making the payment to the appellants. 27. This appeal stands allowed in the terms as indicated above, but without there being any order as to costs.