JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment & award dated 06.02.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Merta ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal has rejected the application for compensation ('the application') filed by the appellants. 2. Earlier the appeal was decided by judgment dated 02.08.2016, whereby, the appeal was allowed. However, on an application filed by the then respondent No. 4 the New India Assurance Company Limited seeking recall of judgment dated 02.08.2016 passed by this Court, it was found that though it was National Insurance Company Limited, which was party respondent before the Tribunal, the New India Assurance Company was wrongly impleaded as party in the appeal and the appeal in the presence of counsel representing the said Insurance Company was decided and, therefore, by order dated 02.09.2016 the judgment dated 02.08.2016 was recalled and matter was ordered to be listed for hearing again after the amended cause title was filed by the appellants and notices were issued to the newly added respondent No. 4-Insurance Company. 3. Both the counsels were heard on the appeal. 4. The application was filed inter alia with the averments that deceased Daya Ram along with his brother Mewa Ram was riding Motor Cycle No. RJ-21-1M-4903 from Merta to his residence on 17/4/2000, when in front of Hanuman Hotel, Jeep No. RJ-21-C-5671, which was being driven rashly & negligently by its driver, collided with them in which Daya Ram suffered injuries and succumbed to the same. It was claimed that age of the deceased was 25 years and his income was Rs. 5000/- per month. Based on the said averments, compensation of Rs. 30,91,000/- was claimed. 5. The claim application was initially filed by Smt. Manori-wife, Mohini-mother, Shivji Ram-father, Mewa Ram-brother and Chotusister, however, as Manori remarried during the pendency of the application, the application was filed seeking withdrawal of the claim on her behalf and to that extent the claim was withdrawn. The application was resisted by respondent nos. 1 to 3, driver, owner and the person in possession of vehicle, respectively denying the averments made in the application. The Insurance Company also filed its reply and denied the averments. The application was resisted by respondent nos. 1 to 3, driver, owner and the person in possession of vehicle, respectively denying the averments made in the application. The Insurance Company also filed its reply and denied the averments. It was also claimed that on the date of accident the vehicle was insured in the name of Sugan Chand, whereas, the vehicle stands in the name of someone else and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 6. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses i.e. A.W.1-Shivji Ram, father, and A.W.2-Mewa Ram, brother, were examined. On behalf of the Insurance Company N.A.W.1-Atul Kumar Dixit was examined. 7. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the eye witness Mewa Ram, who claimed to be riding with the deceased on the Motor Cycle has wrongly stated that the FIR was lodged by his uncle Deva Ram, the same creates suspicion. The Jeep was not seized on the spot, the first informant did not see the number of vehicle and from the criminal papers, it cannot be deciphered as to how the vehicle's involvement came to light and consequently held that it cannot be said that the accident took place from the vehicle in question and the Tribunal decided the issue against the claimants. Rest of the issues were decided in light of the issue No. 1 and claim application was rejected. 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal committed a grave error in arriving at the finding at issue No. 1 and rejecting the claim of the appellants. It was submitted that from the material available on record, it was proved that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the Jeep, however, based on conjectures and surmises the issue has been decided against the appellants. With reference to the police documents and statement of Mewa Ram, it was submitted that it was nobody's case that the vehicle in question was not involved, however, the Tribunal on its own has reached such a finding for which there was no foundation and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. With reference to the police documents and statement of Mewa Ram, it was submitted that it was nobody's case that the vehicle in question was not involved, however, the Tribunal on its own has reached such a finding for which there was no foundation and, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. It was submitted that the appellant No. 1-Shivji Ram is blind and the entire family was dependent on the deceased and, therefore, grave injustice has happened to the appellants, who are entitled to just compensation. It was submitted that the income of the deceased was Rs. 5000/- per month and based on the said income, compensation be determined. 9. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 . 10. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company supported the award impugned. It was submitted that the Tribunal has rightly found the testimony of Mewa Ram unreliable and once the factum of involvement of vehicle itself has not been proved, the claimants are not entitled to any relief from this Court; it was further submitted that the Insurance Company had in its reply clearly disputed the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, though initially the Police had given F.R. on account of its inability to find out the vehicle involved in the accident, suddenly on an application filed by Deva Ram investigation was restarted and suddenly the insured vehicle was attached. No signs of any accident were found on the vehicle, which clearly shows that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident. Deva Ram was not examined by the claimants to support their case and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. Deva Ram was not examined by the claimants to support their case and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. A perusal of the application and the reply filed by the respondent Insurance Company, driver & owner reveals that it was the case of the claimants that deceased Daya Ram and his brother Mewa Ram were riding together on the Motor Cycle and were standing on the correct side of the road in front of Hanuman Hotel when the offending Jeep struck them; while Mewa Ram was slightly injured, Daya Ram was grievously injured, therefore, first he was taken to Merta and from there to Ajmer and during treatment he succumbed to the injuries. Mewa Ram, eye witness, appeared in the witness box as A.W.2 and reiterated the contents of the application. He was extensively cross examined by the counsel for the Insurance Company, however, not a word was put to him questioning the involvement of the vechile in question. The entire emphasis during cross examination was to cross examine him regarding the negligence of the Jeep driver. No cross examination whatsoever was done from the side of driver and owner, though they were represented by counsel. Reasons indicated by the Tribunal for doubting the presence of Mewa Ram are wholly flimsy. The fundamental reason indicated is that Mewa Ram gave out wrongly that the report was made by his uncle Deva Ram, whereas, the same was lodged by owner of Hanuman Hotel, Dilip Singh, and that why he himself did not lodge the report. 13. So far as the Mewa Ram himself not lodging the report is concerned, as already noticed, when Daya Ram was seriously injured and was first taken to Merta and then to Ajmer for treatment, to expect his brother to abandon the injured brother and first lodge the report and that also in a case where his father is blind, is expecting too much. 14. 14. Besides the above, from the FIR (Ex.2) it is apparent that the police received information about the accident on telephone and after it reached at the site, it took the report in writing from the owner of Hanuman Hotel and once the report was lodged within the short time of accident on the same day, there was no occasion for re-registering the FIR by Mewa Ram only because he was accompanying the deceased. The other reason indicated by the Tribunal is that the informant indicated in the FIR that he could not see the registration number of the offending Jeep, then as to how the said Jeep was got connected with the accident and challan was filed against the said driver is not known. 15. Once the issue in this regard has not been raised by the parties affected by the said application i.e. driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle, there was apparently no occasion for the Tribunal to be curious as to how the vehicle was involved, as it is clearly indicated that Deva Ram and few others gave statement, based on which the Jeep was seized and after investigation challan was filed. 16. So far as the submissions made by counsel for the respondent Insurance Company are concerned, the Insurance Company in its reply to the application, inter alia, indicated as under, regarding which contention, it was submitted by counsel that the same amounts to denial of the involvement of the vehicle:- "11 & Dyse vkosnu dk iSjk ua0 26 o 27 ds tokc dh vko';drk ugha gSA Dyse vkosnu dk iSjk ua0 28 xyr gksus ds Lohdkj ugha gSA izkFkhZ nq?kZVuk Lo;a lkfcr djsaA izkFkhZx.k us vlyh nq?kZVuk dks tkucq>dj fNik;k gS rksM+ ejksM+ dj nq?kZVuk dk fooj.k fn;k gSA e`rd Lo;a 'kjkc fi;k gqvk Fkk vkSj mldh Lo;a dh xyrh ls ,DlhM+sUV gqvk FkkA izkFkhZx.k us nq?kZVuk ds oDr esokjke izkFkhZ ua0 4 dk eksVj lkbZfdy ij e`rd ds lkFk cSBk gksuk crk;k gS tcfd esokjke ds [kjksap rd ugha vkbZ gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k us nq?kZVuk ds vlyh rF; fNik dj xyr Dyse is'k fd;k gSA^^ 17. A bare look at the above would indicate that it was contended that actual facts of accident were being suppressed; the deceased was drunk and the accident occurred on account of his own mistake and that though Mewa Ram was claimed to be riding along-with the deceased on the motor cycle, he has not received any injury and that the correct facts about the accident were being suppressed. The very fact that allegations were made that the correct facts about accident were being suppressed and that the deceased was drunk and the accident occurred on account of his own mistake necessarily means that though the accident took place, but the driver of the vehicle was not guilty of causing accident. The said plea cannot be termed as denying the involvement of the vehicle at all. 18. So far as non-appearance of Deva Ram as witness is concerned, the said fact by itself cannot be determinative of the truthfulness/falsity of the claim made by the claimants regarding involvement of the vehicle. The police besides the statement of Deva Ram has taken statements of other witnesses as well during reinvestigation and, thereafter filed challan against the driver of the insured vehicle and, therefore, it cannot be said that on account of non-examination of Deva Ram before the Tribunal, the same would be fatal for the claimants. 19. In view thereof, the reasons, which prevailed with the Tribunal for doubting the involvement of the vehicle in question cannot be sustained. 20. So far as the fact as to whether the driver of the Jeep was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, A.W.2 Mewa Ram has clearly stated in his statement that on the straight road when he along with his brother Daya Ram were standing on the side of the road, the vehicle struck them on the wrong side of the road. A look at the site map produced as Ex.3 clearly indicates the tire marks from 'C' to 'D' and the Motor Cycle, which was on its correct side (left), upon being hit by the Jeep, has gone to other side of the shoulder of the road, which clearly indicates that the driver of the Jeep was driving rashly and negligently. 21. 21. In view thereof, the finding on issue No. 1 recorded by the Tribunal is reversed and it is held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Jeep No. RJ-21-C-5671, which resulted in grievous injuries to Daya Ram to which he succumbed. 22. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has not dealt with the said issue and normally the matter should have been remanded back to the Tribunal for determination on the said aspect, but looking to the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2000 and the present appeal is pending since 2002, this appeal was decided once on 02.08.2016 now remanding back the matter to Tribunal would be too harsh for the appellants, therefore, same is being determined hereunder. 23. The claim of the claimants was that the deceased was earning Rs. 5000/- per month by way of agricultural operations and animal husbandary and he was aged 25 years. A.W.1 Shivji Ram in his statement stated that his son was involved in business of food grain and fodder and used to earn Rs. 5000/- and sometimes Rs. 6000/- per month and used to keep Rs. 1000/- for his personal expenses. Besides the said available evidence, no other evidence was produced. Looking to the status of agricultural operations in the year 2000, even if the income of the deceased is taken as that of a skilled workman in terms of minimum wages as prevalent at the relevant time, the same comes to Rs. 1768/- per month, which can be taken as a reasonable basis for arriving at a just compensation in the circumstances of the present case. The dependents on the deceased at the time of his death were five. As already noticed, the father of the deceased is blind and the entire family would be dependent on the deceased and, therefore, deduction under the head 'personal and living expenses' as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma (supra) would be the and the multiplier of 18 would have to be adopted looking to the age of the deceased. In this manner, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,86,415/- rounded off to Rs. 2,86,500/- (1768-442=1326x12x18=2,86,415). Further, appellants Smt. Mohini and Shivji Ram, being parents of the deceased, would be entitled to a sum of Rs. In this manner, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,86,415/- rounded off to Rs. 2,86,500/- (1768-442=1326x12x18=2,86,415). Further, appellants Smt. Mohini and Shivji Ram, being parents of the deceased, would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each towards loss of love & affection from their son and appellant nos. 3 and 4, brother & sister of the deceased, would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each towards loss of love and affection. The claimants would also be entitled to a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards funeral expenses and in all would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,61,500/- as compensation. The claimants would also be entitled to interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the application i.e 31/10/2000. 24. So far as the liability of Insurance Company is concerned, a perusal of the Registration Certificate (Ex.12) reveals that the vehicle is in the name of Sugan Chand and the same was transferred on 22/5/2000 to Radhey Shyam. The accident occurred on 17/4/2000 i.e. before the same was transferred to Radhey Shyam and the Policy stands in the name of Sugan Chand for the period 30/6/1999 to 29/6/2000. In view thereof, there is no substance in the plea raised by the Insurance Company seeking to disown its liability towards the said vehicle. 25. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and award dated 6/2/2002 passed by the Tribunal is set aside, the claimants are held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,61,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of application i.e. 31/10/2000 on the said amount from the respondents Rajendra Prasad, Sugan Chand and The National Insurance Company Limited, for which they are jointly and severally liable. 26. The amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellant Shivji Ram and Smt. Mohini to the extent of Rs. 1,70,750/- each along with interest and the appellant Mewa Ram and Chotu would be paid compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- each along with interest. The amount along with interest be paid to the appellants in their Saving Bank Accounts. 27. The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of the above amount within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment.