JUDGMENT B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant - insurance company challenging the order dated 13.07.2010 in OP.No.1127 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (FAC) cum III Additional District Judge (FTC), Khammam. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the death of the husband/father of the claimants in a motor accident dated 08.08.2005 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.RJ 21 G 2476. The claim was partly allowed by the tribunal below granting compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lorry was planted. There is no proof of accident on the spot. Since there is serious dispute with regard to the involvement of the lorry, the order of the tribunal below is erroneous and liable to be set aside. He further submitted that the offending lorry did not ply on the road and it was not insured by the appellant. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 - claimants submitted that the award passed by the tribunal below needs no interference. The tribunal below having taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, came to the correct conclusion that the fact of the accident was proved and so also that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The age of the deceased was 45 years as per Ex.A4 (PME report) and the same was deposed by P.W.1, the wife of the deceased. Taking into consideration that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day by doing daily coolie work, the tribunal below fixed reasonable amount of Rs.70/- per day and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenditure, Rs.1,400/- was arrived at as the contribution of the deceased to the family. The multiplier of 13 adopted by the tribunal below is also just and proper. 6. The claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The appellant - insurance company examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 - copy of the insurance policy. 7. The multiplier of 13 adopted by the tribunal below is also just and proper. 6. The claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The appellant - insurance company examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.B1 - copy of the insurance policy. 7. P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to the accident, deposed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. P.W.2, in his evidence, stated that "on 08.08.2005 at about 5.30 Am, myself and one Jalla Sudhakar are going to fields on Khammam Warangal Road, at the same time the deceased was going ahead on his Bicycle on the same road. That meantime one lorry bearing No.RJ.21 G-2476 came in high speed with a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased from his behind. That due to sudden impact of hitting by the lorry, the deceased cycle the deceased fell on the road and succumbed to injuries. That due to sudden impacting of hitting lorry to the cycle the head light on the left side of the lorry was broken and according to the available sticker on the lorry, we found the address of the lorry as New Shakthi Brahma Colony, Rajahmundry 6, A.P., and also we found sticker on the head light and we found it was written as "Rahman Bhai" in English with PhoneNo.0883 2410902, 2411877, 2468409 and S.L.No.98491 69749. That the S.H.O., P.S. Khamman Rural examined me and I narrated the above facts to the Police and Police traced out the vehicle with the above information and it was found that the said lorry was started on 07-08-2005 of one Shaik Rahman's Lorry Office with Coconut load bound to Rajahmundry to Rajasthan. 8. P.W.2 who stated that he is the eyewitness to the accident, is also shown as L.W.10 in the charge sheet filed by the police and thus his evidence cannot be doubted. Taking into consideration the oral evidence of P.W.2 coupled with documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A1 (FIR), Ex.A2 (Chargesheet), Ex.A3 (MVI Report) and Ex.A4 (PME report), the tribunal below rightly held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. 9. Insofar as evidence of R.W.1 is concerned, the main contention seems to be that the driver of the lorry is not traced out and NBW's were not executed against him. 10. 9. Insofar as evidence of R.W.1 is concerned, the main contention seems to be that the driver of the lorry is not traced out and NBW's were not executed against him. 10. It is not in dispute that the chargesheet was filed by the police under Ex.A2 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The driver was not arrested as he was absconding. The II Additional JFCM, Khammam, stopped the proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C by acquitting him on 02.05.2008. Thus, in view of stopping of criminal proceedings, no case is prosecuted against the driver of the lorry regarding occurrence of the accident and subsequently, the case was closed under Section 258 Cr.P.C. Merely because the driver was not traced out and NBW's could not be issued, it cannot be said that there is collusion between the driver of the offending lorry and the claimants. It needs to be pointed out that in the cross-examination such questions were not put to P.W.2, who is the relevant and crucial witness. 11. In case the appellant - insurance company intended to prove that the accident actually has not taken place, nothing prevented them from leading evidence in that regard. Since P.W.2 is the eyewitness, who has clearly explained the manner in which the accident took place, this Court does not have any other alternative but to affirm the finding of the lower tribunal that the accident is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. With regard to the aspect of compensation, the tribunal has rightly quantified income of the deceased at Rs.1,400/- per month who was working as daily wage cooli and by applying multiplier 13, arrived at a just and reasonable compensation. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.