JUDGMENT AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—Even though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the counsel, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is by the insurer questioning the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal both on the question of liability as well as quantum. Indeed, we notice that two claim petitions were filed before the Tribunal MVC Nos. 522/2003 and 523/2003. Both the claim petitions are accepted by the Tribunal. The insurer has satisfied the claim insofar as MVC No. 523/2003 is concerned. But, however, has questioned the judgment and award passed in MVC 522/2003 on various grounds. 3. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer, few facts are required to be noted. 4. That on the fateful day of 25.6.2003, one of the occupants of the vehicle one Bidesh Nair, who is the claimant in the other claim petition and his friends and deceased B.P. Anantha Krishna were proceeding from Bangalore to Kundapura in a motor car, which is of the ownership of respondent No. 3. When the occupants of the vehicle were proceeding on national highway 48 near Karekere Forest, the driver of the said car was driving the said vehicle in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the said accident, the occupant of the car Dr. B.P. Anantha Krishna died on the spot from the injuries sustained all over his body. The claimant in other claim petitions and his friends sustained injuries all over their bodies. After the accident, the claimant in. another claim petition and his friends were shifted to hospital where treatment was given. The present claim petition is filed by the mother as well as the sister of the deceased claiming compensation on the ground that the deceased Dr. B.P. Anantha Krishna was a dentist and was earning a sum of Rs. 42,000/- p.m. and was contributing his entire earnings to sustain the family. The claim petition would also state that the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No. 92/2002 as against the driver of the car and a charge sheet is also filed. 5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the insurer enters appearance, files statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The claim petition would also state that the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No. 92/2002 as against the driver of the car and a charge sheet is also filed. 5. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the insurer enters appearance, files statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The insurer would contend that the claim itself is frivolous, false and vexatious. They would take up a specific contention before the Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. The deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for compensation. They would also contend that a false case has been hoisted as against the driver of the vehicle and a charge sheet is filed, so that the insurer is made liable to answer the claim. 6. The owner of the vehicle enters appearance and contests the claim petition. He would admit, that he is the owner of the vehicle in question, but, however, would deny the rash and negligence. During the course of enquiry the claimants have examined P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. P.W. 2 is the occupant of the car and claimant in the other claim petition who would speak about the accident and P.W. 1 is the sister of the deceased. Through these two witnesses as many as 22 documents were marked, i.e., Exs. P1 to P22. Incidentally we also note that the insurer has not examined anyone and has not marked any documents. 7. The learned member of the Tribunal having regard to the evidence let in by the claimants and with reference to the documentary evidence was of the view that indeed, the deceased was not driving the vehicle in question. But it was the driver as against whom a charge sheet has been filed. The Tribunal has relied on the evidence of P.W. 2 who was an occupant of the car. He has also relied on the subsequent statement made by the complainant. Hence, has recorded a finding that indeed, it is the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and not the deceased. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. He has also relied on the subsequent statement made by the complainant. Hence, has recorded a finding that indeed, it is the driver who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and not the deceased. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- p.m. after deducting 50% towards personal expenses has determined the ‘Loss of dependency’ at Rs. 7,20,000/- and the Tribunal has further awarded certain sums under the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation awarded to the claimant is Rs. 7,65,000/-. 8. Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer was at great pains to persuade us to take a view that this is a clear case of fraud inasmuch as the First Information Report itself would disclose that it was the deceased who was driving the vehicle in question and not the driver. He would press into service the contents of the First Information Report to buttress his contention that it is the deceased who was driving the motor vehicle in question. He would also press into service the inquest panchanama, wherein it is clearly stated that it was the deceased who was driving the vehicle. If this fact is accepted, the question of insurer answering the claim would not arise. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, he submits that the ‘Loss of Dependency as determined by the Tribunal is excessive inasmuch no documents are forthcoming to show as to whether the deceased had set up a practice in dentistry. He further submits that the income tax returns, on which reliance is placed by the Tribunal is subsequent to the accident. Hence, reliance cannot be placed on the said documents. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants would support the judgment and award. He submits that, if the entire oral evidence of P.W. 2 and the documentary evidence are read together, the mistake or an error, which was committed, has been subsequently rectified by further statement. He further submits that the insurer has not. let in any evidence in support of the contention that a fraud has been committed. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, he submits that the tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was a dentist and had a flourishing practice, 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. let in any evidence in support of the contention that a fraud has been committed. Insofar as the quantum is concerned, he submits that the tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the deceased was a dentist and had a flourishing practice, 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by Mr. B.C. Seethararna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer so also the learned counsel appearing for the claimants. 11. Undoubtedly Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer is right in submitting that, if a fraud is committed, the Court, shall not come to the aid of such claimants. 12. Indeed, in the case of Veerappa and another vs. Siddappa and Another, ILR 2009 Kant. 3562 we notice that: “fraud and justice never dwell together, is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.” 13. Indeed, the judgment and decree, which has been obtained by playing fraud on the Courts would certainly be nullity and the said judgment and decree, obtained by fraud cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. But, however, in the case on hand we notice that at. first blush one gets an impression that a fraud is committed, but, however, on a. deeper probe, we find that it is not so. It can at best be described as an information, which was given in anxiety having regard to the nature of the accident. Undoubtedly Ex. P2 is a copy of First Information Report, which is on a complaint lodged by one of the occupants of the car. Indeed, it is stated that it was the deceased who was driving the vehicle, but, however, what, is significant is the statement, which is made subsequently and the said statement is corroborated by P.W. 2 in his statement before the police. Indeed, the further statement of the complainant would disclose that when the occupants of the car along with deceased left Bangalore it was the deceased who was driving the car during which period the complainant had dozed of. Hence, under the mistaken impression that the deceased was driving the car on that premise, a statement was made before the police. This statement: is substantiated by P.W. 2 during the course of enquiry as well as before the police. 14. Hence, under the mistaken impression that the deceased was driving the car on that premise, a statement was made before the police. This statement: is substantiated by P.W. 2 during the course of enquiry as well as before the police. 14. It is no doubt true that the inquest report, is marked as Ex. P7 and in the said inquest mahazar, it is stated that, it was the deceased who was driving the vehicle. We notice that the accident has occurred on 25.6.2002 and the complaint is lodged on the same day. The further statement is recorded on 26.6.2002 and the inquest is done 26.6.2002, i.e., on the day when the further statement was given by the complainant. Indeed, Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer would submit that if a subsequent statement were to be a part of the investigating papers that statement, ought to have been reflected in the inquest report. Indeed, we are of the view that, nothing much can be read into the disparity. The complaint is lodged on 25.6.2002 at 6.30 p.m. and the subsequent statement is given on the next day, i.e., on 26.6.2002. If this were the only two documents, which were on record probably Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel’s contentions can be accepted. But, however, we notice that Ex. P1 is a notice, which is sent to the claimants for lodging of a claim petition. A perusal of Column 7 would disclose that the vehicle was driven by one Dilakshappa and he did possess a Driving Licence. The subsequent records would also disclose that a charge sheet is filed as against the driver of the vehicle in Crime No. 24/2002, If all these material is taken into consideration and considered in tandem it is clear that it was not the deceased who was driving the vehicle in question. Indeed, Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer has pressed into service Ex. P7, the inquest report, which according to him would advance his case. We note that the admissibility of the inquest is only to the extent as to ascertaining the cause of death. Indeed, Mr. B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the insurer has pressed into service Ex. P7, the inquest report, which according to him would advance his case. We note that the admissibility of the inquest is only to the extent as to ascertaining the cause of death. If any decision is required, one can refer to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheh and others vs. State of U.P., (2006) 2 SCC 450 , the Apex Court, has observed thus: “Section 174 is limited in scope and is confined to ascertainment of the apparent cause of death.” That would be the scope of inquest report. Apart from these two documents, if the other documents are taken into consideration, which are in the nature of Ex. P1 the intimation letter, Ex. P3, the further statement of the complainant, Ex. P4, the statement of other claimant, and Ex. P10. the charge sheet, we are of the view that it was the driver who was driving the vehicle in question. Indeed, we are also required to note that we are dealing with the claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries and the death. The rigor of criminal case cannot be made attributable to the enquiry, which is conducted under the Motor Vehicles Act, Thus, we are of the view that the accident has occurred solely on the rash and negligent, driving of the driver of the vehicle. 15. This takes us to the next question as to the compensation, which is awardable to the claimants. Indeed, in this regard we notice that there is no positive evidence let in by the claimants in support of the income of the deceased. We notice that the deceased was 25 years old and had completed his dental surgery. The claim petition would disclose that he had set. up a clinic by expending a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/-. Indeed, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- p.m., which we find is without any documentary proof. 16. It is no doubt true that the claimants have made available the Income Tax Returns for the year 2001-02. But we notice that the returns are filed on 19.2.2002, i.e., after the accident. 4,00,000/-. Indeed, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs. 12,000/- p.m., which we find is without any documentary proof. 16. It is no doubt true that the claimants have made available the Income Tax Returns for the year 2001-02. But we notice that the returns are filed on 19.2.2002, i.e., after the accident. Indeed, if it is the case of the claimants that he had a roaring practice, nothing prevented the claimants from producing the income tax returns, which were filed earlier. Obviously they could not have filed for the simple reason that the claim of the claimants is that he had just commenced practicing dentistry and was into it for about six months. Indeed, we are a little skeptical about the income as sought to be projected in the income tax returns. Indeed, if the deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- for establishing a clinic some material ought to have been produced by the claimants for he had borrowed the money from the Banks. No documents are forthcoming in support of the plea of the claimants that the deceased had established a clinic. In the absence of the material in support of such a plea, we are of the view that the Tribunal was clearly in error in taking the income of the deceased at. Rs. 12,000/- p.m. We also note that the deceased was not specialized in any form of dentistry from which we could infer that, his income was substantial. In these circumstances, we propose to take the income of the deceased at Rs. 7,000/- p.m. and we deduct 50% towards personal expenses and having regard to the age of the two claimants the proper multiplier in the circumstances would be ‘13’. Thus the total compensation awardable under the heading of “Loss of dependency’ would be as follows (Rs. 3,500 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 5,46,000/-) Rs. 5,46,000/- to that we add a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the conventional heads. Thus, the total compensation awardable to the claimants would be Rs. 5,86,000/-, which we round it of to Rs. 5,90,000/-. Hence the following order: (i) We accept the appeal in part. (ii) The total compensation awardable to the claimants is Rs. 5,90,000/-. (iii) Registry to transmit the amount in deposit to the concerned Tribunal. (iv) The insurer to satisfy the award.