JUDGMENT V.M. Deshpande, J. (Oral) - The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 13.08.2004 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in M.A.C.P. No. 298/2001. By the impugned judgment and award, the claim petition filed on behalf of the present appellants under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was partly allowed and the Court below held the respondents herein liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the appellants inclusive of no fault liability. 2. The claim petition was filed by the parents of deceased Dinesh Zade. According to the petition, at the time of accident, which occurred in the mid night of 16.01.2001 and 17.01.2001 at Kamptee Colliery road, the age of deceased Dinesh was 18 years only. It was the further case of the claimants that at the relevant time, deceased was working as a Cleaner on the offending truck vehicle bearing registration No. MTG5176 owned by respondent no.1. It was also averred in the claim petition that the said truck was duly insured with respondent no.2 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. and at the time of accident, insurance policy was in force. The claimants state in their petition that during the employment of deceased with respondent no.1, he was paid Rs. 2,000/per month by way of his salary. In the claim petition at paragraph 4 the claimants gave the particulars of claim, which are as under : Rs. 2,88,000/- Compensation towards the loss of income of the deceased as mentioned in para 21(1) Rs. 15,000/- Compensation towards the mental shock and agony as mentioned in para 21(2) Rs. 15,000/- Compensation towards the expenses of funeral and last rites as mentioned in para 21(3). Rs.3,18,000/- Total 3. On being noticed, the respondents appeared before the Court below and filed their written statement Exhs.15 and 18 respectively. In substance the written statements are of total denial. On behalf of the claimants, appellant no.1 Pannalal entered into the witness box to prove their case. Nobody entered in the witness box for and on behalf of any of the respondents. The Court below after appreciating the case of the claimants has passed the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Pophaly, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. A. J. Mirza, learned counsel holding for Mr. Masood Shariff, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. The Court below after appreciating the case of the claimants has passed the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Pophaly, the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. A. J. Mirza, learned counsel holding for Mr. Masood Shariff, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Mr. Dhanagare, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 - Insurance Company. All the respective counsel vehemently argued for their respective briefs. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the original record and the impugned judgment, following points do arise for my determination- 1] Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants is just and proper ? 2] What order ? 6. There is no dispute about the unnatural death of Dinesh Zade in a vehicular accident. Exh.23 is the first information report, by which Crime No. 27/2001 for the offence punishable under sections 279, 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the truck bearing No. MTG5176 at Police Station, Kanhan. The spot panchanama is at Exh.25. The inquest panchanama is at Exh.26. The post mortem report is at Exh.27. 7. There is no dispute that respondent no.1 is the owner of truck No. MTG5176. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time the said truck was duly insured with the respondent no.2. 8. The submission of the learned counsel Shri Dhanagare for respondent no.2 - Insurance Company is that there is no document in the nature of order of appointment etc. on record showing that deceased was in employment of respondent no.1. Though, respondent no.1 has denied the fact that deceased was working and/or was in her employment or her husband Arvindsingh, for the reasons best known to respondent no.1, they failed to enter into the witness box. The deceased was working as a cleaner. This Court can take a note that on most of the occasions when a person is employed as driver or a cleaner by any private individual person, they are not given any written appointment order. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent no.2 - Insurance Company that because of this, the claimants shall be disbelieved to the extent that their son was in employment of respondent no.1. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submissions of the learned counsel for respondent no.2 - Insurance Company that because of this, the claimants shall be disbelieved to the extent that their son was in employment of respondent no.1. Had respondent no.1 entered into the witness box, there would have been a chance to the claimants to cross-examine respondent no.1 or any other witness entered in witness box for and on behalf of respondent no.1 and they would have facilitated to bring the truth on record. Therefore, though, there is a specific defence taken by respondent no.1 about the employment of deceased with her, but since she failed to enter the witness box, the Court can draw an adverse interference in respect of the said aspect. 9. As per the claimants, the monthly salary of deceased was Rs. 2,000/-. Thus, his daily wages will be Rs. 66/-. It is less than the minimum wages. Therefore, in my view, there may not be any difficulty to accept the version of appellant no.1 which he made when he was in witness box that his son was drawing Rs. 2,000/per months as salary. Out of Rs. 2,000/-, /rd amount can be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Thus, Rs. 1,333/- will be the loss of dependency per month, which comes to Rs. 16,000/-per annum. It is not in dispute that at the time of death, Dinesh was 18 years of age. Therefore, the multiplier of 18 can be pressed into service. Thus, the total loss of dependency of the claimants will be (Rs.16,000/- x 18) = Rs. 2,88,000/-. 10. From the impugned judgment, it is clear that no amount was awarded towards the loss of compensation towards mental shock and agony and also for the compensation towards funeral and last rites. On these two counts, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 15,000/- each. Thus, the claimants, in my view, are entitled to receive Rs. 3,18,000/-. 11. The Court below has already granted Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the claimants. That amount will have to be deducted from the total compensation of Rs. 3,18,000/-. Thus, the claimants will be entitled to receive Rs. 2,18,000/- inclusive of no fault liability, jointly and severally from both the respondents along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e. 12.03.2001 till actual realization of the amount. 12. Mr. That amount will have to be deducted from the total compensation of Rs. 3,18,000/-. Thus, the claimants will be entitled to receive Rs. 2,18,000/- inclusive of no fault liability, jointly and severally from both the respondents along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition i.e. 12.03.2001 till actual realization of the amount. 12. Mr. Dhanagare, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the Insurance Company will deposit Rs. 2,18,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition before this Court within a period of eight weeks from today. Statement accepted. 13. With this, the appeal is allowed and disposed of. No costs.