JUDGMENT K. Lakshman, J. - Assailing the order and decree, dated 23.01.2007 in O.P. No.103 of 2004, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellants preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking an amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- as compensation against respondent Nos.1 to 3 for the death of their son - Vijenderdhar Goud in a accident occurred on 19.09.2002. 3. Heard Mr. P. Ganga Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. Despite service of notices on respondent Nos.1 to 3, none appeared. 4. According to the appellants, respondent No.2, owner of Tractor bearing registration No.ATG 4771 engaged their son as coolie for loading and unloading purposes on the said tractor. On 19.09.2002 while the said tractor was proceeding towards Kondanagula village from Mylaram village along with agricultural labourer including their son at about 12.30 p.m., its driver drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. As a result, son of the appellants fell down from the tractor and received fracture injuries viz., fracture of two legs, head injuries and collar bone etc. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Achampet where he got provided first aid and then shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Their son got treated there as inpatient from 19.09.2002 and discharged on 30.10.2002 and got operated on 21.10.2002. After discharge from the hospital also he took continuous treatment for the injuries he sustained and ultimately he died on 18.07.2003. After discharge from the Osmania General Hospital, appellant No.1, father of the deceased, lodged a report with Balmoor Police Station and a Crime No.69 of 2002 was registered under Section 337 IPC initially and after the death the provision of law was converted to 338 IPC. It is also their contention that prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and that he was earning Rs. 100 to Rs. 150/- per day. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the appellants being parents sustained huge loss. Respondent No.1 is driver while respondent No.2 is owner of the tractor and thus they laid the claim against them for the above said sum. 5. 100 to Rs. 150/- per day. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the appellants being parents sustained huge loss. Respondent No.1 is driver while respondent No.2 is owner of the tractor and thus they laid the claim against them for the above said sum. 5. It is relevant to note that prior to filing the above claim petition, the deceased filed O.P. No.102 of 2003 seeking an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation and subsequently it was withdrawn. 6. Respondent No.1, driver of the tractor, remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, said to be the owner of the tractor, filed his counter denying the cause of the accident, engaging the deceased as labourer on his tractor and his ownership of the tractor. He further contended that he was not the owner of the tractor and that one Mr. P. Damodar Reddy was the owner of the said tractor. 7. After filing the said counter, the appellants filed I.A. No.1257/2006 and got impleaded respondent No.3 being owner of the tractor. 8. Despite issuance of notices including taking substituted service, respondent No.3 did not enter his appearance before the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal set him exparte. 9. On behalf of the appellants, father of the deceased, appellant No.1, examined himself as PW.1, also examined one Mr. Vadla Naraiah, an eye-witness to the accident as PW.2 and the doctor and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of respondent No.2, he himself examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.B1, copy of registration of certificate in respect of the crime vehicle. 10. The Tribunal after analyzing the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and that respondent No.2 was not the owner of the said tractor. The Tribunal also observed that there was abnormal delay in lodging FIR and accordingly dismissed the claim petition though arrived at the compensation. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have believed the evidence of PW.2 and registration of crime against respondent No.1 and so also documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A9 and finally prayed to allow the appeal. 12. 11. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred the present appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have believed the evidence of PW.2 and registration of crime against respondent No.1 and so also documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A9 and finally prayed to allow the appeal. 12. First of all, it is to be noted that the appellants did not make the Insurance Company of the vehicle as a party to the claim petition. On perusal of the entire record including Ex.A1 - FIR and Ex.A2 - charge sheet and depositions of PWs.1 and 2, it is not in dispute that the accident was occurred on 19.09.2002. Due to the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries including fracture of legs, head injuries and he underwent operations to his legs etc. It is not in dispute that immediately after the accident, the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Achampet and after providing first aid, he was referred to Osmania Genral Hospital, Hyderabad, where the deceased had undergone treatment, got operated twice to his two legs and also underwent neuro surgery. The deceased was discharged on 30.10.2002 with advice to take follow up treatment. He got paralyzed and finally died on 18.07.2003. 13. As per Ex.A1 - FIR, father of the deceased lodged complaint on 29.12.2002 with the Police, Balmoor Police Station complaining about the accident that had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid Tractor viz., ATG 4771. The police after completion of investigation filed Ex.A2 - charge sheet stating that their investigation reveals that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the said tractor. In Ex.A2 - charge sheet, there is specific mention about the delay caused in lodging FIR by the father of the deceased i.e., deceased sustaining grievous injuries and taking treatment in Osmania General Hospital for about 40 to 50 days as inpatient etc. It is relevant to note that in Ex.A4 - Medical Certificate dated 31.07.2003 issued by the Medical Officer, MPHC, Balmoor, there is specific mention about the date of accident as 19.09.2002, in which the deceased was compressed by overturned tractor. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Achampet and later he was referred to Osmania General Hospital. It is relevant to note that in Ex.A4 - Medical Certificate dated 31.07.2003 issued by the Medical Officer, MPHC, Balmoor, there is specific mention about the date of accident as 19.09.2002, in which the deceased was compressed by overturned tractor. He was admitted in Civil Hospital, Achampet and later he was referred to Osmania General Hospital. There is also mention in Ex.A4 about the grievous injuries sustained by the deceased and his admission into the Osmania General Hospital on 19.09.2002 at Neuro Surgery Department and was discharged on 30.10.2002. There is also specific mention in Ex.A4 that the patient's general condition did not improve and he remained paralyzed. The treatment (Medical prescribed by Neuro Surgeon) is continued under the supervision of the Mandal Medical Officer. The patient remained paralyzed from the date of injury till the date of death, and date of death was mentioned as 18.07.2003 due to the injury to spinal cord and resulting consequences. 14. The above stated facts would clearly reveal that the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where he had taken treatment as in-patient up to 30.10.2002 including surgeries. The deceased sustained grievous injuries including fractures to his two legs and head injury. He underwent surgery, but his general condition did not improve and he remained paralyzed. It is also not in dispute that the deceased was an agricultural labourer. Therefore, the complaint was given only on 29.12.2002, basing on which the police registered Ex.A1 FIR. [ 15. In view of the seriousness of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the Tribunal cannot be expected that FIR has to be lodged immediately after the accident. Normally, when the deceased was in serious condition, the parents as well as relatives of the patient would only concentrate in providing treatment and other medical assistance to the patient and would not concentrate in lodging report with the police. In this regard, the Apex Court as well as this Court categorically held in a catena of decisions, more particularly, in Ravi v. Badrinarayan, 2011 ACJ 911 and Bodige Padma v. Makula Shanker, 2012 5 ALT 559 respectively to the effect that the delay in lodging the complaint where the injured sustained grievous injuries is not fatal in claiming the compensation and that the said delay can be waived. In the case on hand, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, underwent Neuro Surgery, got paralyzed and ultimately died. In the case on hand, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, underwent Neuro Surgery, got paralyzed and ultimately died. In the said circumstances, the delay caused in lodging the report with the police can be waived keeping the object of the M.V. Act as it is only a beneficial legislation and benefit should be given to the beneficiary without insisting much on the technicalities, such as delay in reporting the occurrence with the police etc. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal on that aspect is hereby set aside. 16. Now, coming to the liability, it is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 before the Tribunal that the crime vehicle stood in the name of respondent No.3 as on the date of accident and, therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. On perusal of the record, it is clear that pursuant to the counter filed by respondent No.2, the appellants got impleaded the owner of the crime vehicle as respondent No.3. Even Ex.B1, copy of registration of certificate pertains to the crime vehicle, discloses the name of the owner as respondent No.3. In the said circumstances, respondent No.3 is only liable to pay compensation, but not respondent No.2. 17. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, though Ex.A3 discloses the age of the deceased as 18 years, but the appellants have mentioned in their claim petition the age of the deceased as 19 years. There is no contra evidence to disprove the same. Accordingly, the age of the deceased should be considered as 19' years. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 6 SCC 121 the relevant multiplier is 18'. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the deceased was an agricultural labourer and used to earn Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- per day. The investigation done by the police also discloses that the deceased was an agricultural labourer. There is no contra evidence to disprove the same. The Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, 2011 13 SCC 236 has considered the earning capacity of a coolie as Rs. 4,500/- per month. Following the said principle, the said amount of Rs. 4,500/- can be considered as the monthly earnings of the deceased. The deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident. 4,500/- per month. Following the said principle, the said amount of Rs. 4,500/- can be considered as the monthly earnings of the deceased. The deceased was a bachelor as on the date of accident. Therefore, 50% has to be deducted from the said amount towards his personal and living expenses as per the principle held by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma, 2009 6 SCC 121 from the monthly earnings of the deceased and accordingly, it would come to Rs. 2,250/- towards monthly earnings or Rs. 27,000/- towards annual earnings. When the same is multiplied with the relevant multiplier 18', it would work out to Rs. 4,86,000/- (Rs.27,000/- x 18) and accordingly the same is awarded to the appellants. On account of untimely death of the deceased, the appellants sustained future prospects as had he been alive, the deceased would have contributed more towards his parents. Therefore, as per the principle held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 16 SCC 680 40% future prospects have to be added to the appellants and when the same is added it would work out to Rs. 1,94,400/- (40% of Rs. 4,86,000/-) and therefore, the same is awarded to the appellants. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the appellants spent huge amount towards purchase of medicines and, therefore, prayed to grant the amount under the said head. In the claim petition, the appellants claimed an amount of Rs. 75,000/- under the head of medical expenditure. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the prolonged treatment undergone by the deceased, the appellants incurred certain amounts. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is awarded towards medical expenditure. 19. As per the principle held by the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited the appellants are entitled Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 20. The appellants being father and mother of the deceased are considered as dependants for awarding filial consortium and, therefore, they are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium as per the principle held in Magma General Insurance Company Limited. Further, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards damages to clothes are also granted. Thus, in all, appellants are entitled to Rs. 40,000/- each towards filial consortium as per the principle held in Magma General Insurance Company Limited. Further, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and another sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards damages to clothes are also granted. Thus, in all, appellants are entitled to Rs. 8,51,400/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty one thousand and four hundred only) as compensation under the following heads: i) Loss of dependency .. Rs. 4,86,000-00 ii) An addition of 40% .. Rs. 1,94,400-00 iii) Medical Expenses .. Rs. 50,000-00 iv) Funeral expenses .. Rs. 15,000-00 v) Loss of estate .. Rs. 15,000-00 vi) Filial Consortium .. Rs. 80,000-00 vii) Transport charges .. Rs. 10,000-00 viii) Damages to clothes .. Rs. 1,000-00 _______________ Total compensation .. Rs. 8,51,400-00 Thus, the said amount of Rs. 8,51,400/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty one thousand and four hundred only) is awarded as compensation which is just and reasonable with interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court is having power to grant just and reasonable compensation to which the appellants are entitled as held by the Apex Court in Ramla v. National Insurance Company Limited, 2019 2 SCC 192 and a larger Bench of erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Adam Indur Muttemma v. Rathod Reddia, 2015 ACJ 2414 . 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed against respondent No.3 alone, while dismissing the same against respondent Nos.1 and 2. The order and decree, dated 22.01.2007 passed in O.P. No.103 of 2004 by the Tribunal are set aside allowing the claim petition with costs against respondent No.3 alone granting compensation amount of Rs. 8,51,400/- (Rupees eight lakhs fifty one thousand and four hundred only) to the appellants with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2 stands dismissed. The compensation amount shall be apportioned between the petitioners equally. The appellants are directed to pay the deficit Court Fee within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Similarly, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs in one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Similarly, respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs in one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.