ORDER : Heard. 1. This appeal is against the award dated 14-5-2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, in MACT No.412/2014 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim of the legal heirs of Raju Kumar Ratrey. The claimants are the wife, minor daughter and mother & father victim/deceased. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20/08/2012 the deceased Raju Kumar Ratrey was going on Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-04-CA-6450 along with one Viond Kumar Barman. When they reached the main road at about 7-8 PM one tractor trolley bearing registration No.CG-11A-8435 was parked in the middle of the road in the dark which is owned by one Jagat Ram Naik. The deceased and the pillion rider dashed on to the backside of the said tractor trolley and sustained severe injuries and eventually died. Postmortem was carried out which is proved as Ex. A/5 shows that the cause of death was due to severe bleeding and internal injury and the time of death was stated before 24-36 hours prior to the postmortem. The main contention was that the tractor trolley which was parked in the middle of the road without any sign, as such, for this negligence the accident happened. For the accident, the report was made under Sections 283, 304 A, 337, 427 IPC. It was stated that Respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company was the insurer of such tractor trolley. 3. The claimants stated that at the time of incident the deceased was earning Rs.7000/- per month and on different heads Rs.16,50,000/-claim was claimed. The owner of the tractor trolley along with driver i.e. the Respondents No.1 & 2 denied the allegations instead it was stated that the accident had occurred because of the negligence on part of the deceased. They further stated that the trolley was stationary one as such it cannot be treated to be a motor vehicle and was covered under insurance by the Respondent No.3. 4. Respondent No.3, insurance company, also raised the defence of contributory negligence and it was stated that the motorcycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without having a valid license and in state of intoxication. 4. Respondent No.3, insurance company, also raised the defence of contributory negligence and it was stated that the motorcycle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without having a valid license and in state of intoxication. It was further stated that the deceased dashed against the vehicle i.e. the Tractor Trolley because of his own negligence as the tractor trolley was stationed at the road side and there was sufficient light to notice the stationary trolley. Therefore, the Tractor Trolley which is bearing registration No.CG-11A-8435 and they are not entitled for any claim. Further, it was stated that at the relevant time, the tractor trolley was not in movement, therefore, claim under the Motor Vehicle Act cannot be filed. 5. The claims tribunal dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that the FIR was delayed and it was made on 05/11/2012 and according to the postmortem, which was conducted on 21/08/202012 the time of incident was shown as prior to 24-36 hours, therefore, the claim itself was falsified. It was further held that the trolley was in stationary position and the particulars of the tractor engine has not been shown, therefore, the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would not be applicable and the claim petition was dismissed. 6. The proposition of the learned Claims Tribunal prima facie appears to be faulty as admittedly as per the reply the accident occurred from a stationary trolley which was having a registration. Semi-trailer has been defined under Section 2 sub-section (39) and trailer is defined under sub-section (46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the sake of brevity Section 2 (39) & (46) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are produced herein below:- (39) “semi-trailer” means a vehicle not mechanically propelled (other than a trailer), which is intended to be connected to a motor vehicle and which is so constructed that a portion of it is super-imposed on, and a part of whose weight is borne by, that motor vehicle. (46) “trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. 7. (46) “trailer” means any vehicle, other than a semi-trailer and a side-car, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. 7. Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 makes a provision that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal shall adjudicate upon the claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both and Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made. For the sake of brevity Section 165 (1) & 166 (1) are reproduced herein below:- 165. Claims Tribunals.- (1) A State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute one or more Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as Claims Tribunal) for such area as may be specified in the notification for the purpose of adjudicating upon claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both. 166. Application for compensation.- (1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub-section (1) of Section 165 may be made- (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be: Provided that where all the legal representatives of the deceased have not joined in any such application for compensation, the application shall be made on behalf of or for the benefit of all the legal representatives of the deceased and the legal representatives who have not so joined, shall be impleaded as respondents to the application. Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse. 8. Provided further that where a person accepts compensation under section 164 in accordance with the procedure provided under section 149, his claims petition before the Claims Tribunal shall lapse. 8. Now coming back to such claim, Section 2 (28) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines the “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” which suggests that any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and and includes a chasis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal has completely missed out such provision that the trailer would also be included in Motor Vehicle under sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is reproduced herein below:- (28) “motor vehicle” or “vehicle” means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted thereto from an external or internal source and includes a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not exceeding [twenty-five cubic centimetres]; Therefore, the application seeking compensation even in the event of the accidents being occurred with a stationary trailer would be maintainable before the Claims Tribunal. 9. Now reverting back to the finding of the learned Tribunal, whereby happening of the accident itself was denied, appears to be prima facie wrong on the face of it when the respondents have admitted in their reply that the accident occurred but the plea of contributory negligence was raised. Therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Claims Tribunal to land into the discussion on the postmortem report to draw an inference which was nobody's case. The statement of Mukesh Kumar Ratrey (PW-2), who was following the deceased in another motorcycle on the fateful day on 20/08/2012 would show that at about 7-8 pm when it was dark the deceased along with pillion rider could not see the stationary trailer standing on the middle of the road without sign or indication, dashed against it. The FIR lodged on 05/11/2012, which is marked as Ex. The FIR lodged on 05/11/2012, which is marked as Ex. A/3 along with the inquest report A/4 and Postmortem report A/5 would show that the accident had occurred and the seizure was made in respect of the offending vehicle by the police in a criminal case. The Claims Tribunal was not exercising the jurisdiction of deciding a criminal case. The inquest report which was made immediately would show that after the incident it was reported to the police, immediately, the spot was inspected and it was found that dead body of the deceased was lying. So there was no occasion to disbelieve such statement, which remained unrebutted and the finding of the learned Tribunal is completely bad that since it was stated in the postmortem report that the death occurred prior to 24 to 36 hours that was the decisive factor to hold that no accident happened. Consequently, it is held that the claimants were able to prove the fact that because of the unplanned parking of the vehicle on the middle of the road, the deceased dashed against it and thereby he died. 10. Now coming back to the quantum of compensation, the income of the deceased has been stated to be Rs.7000/- per month. The incident happened in the year 2012, therefore, at this stage even for the skilled worker the notional income can be taken to be Rs.4500/- per month and thus the annual income would come to Rs.54000/-. The deceased was aged about 24 years, applying the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others { (2017) 16 SCC 680 } an addition of 40% of the established income would warrant as the deceased was below the age of 40 years and was self employed. Since there were four dependents i.e. the appellants herein the wife, minor daughter, mother and father, as per the principles laid down in Sarla Verma Vs. D.T.C. { (2009) 6 SCC 121 } deduction would be 1/4th towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Taking into the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 would be applicable. On the conventional heads for loss of estate amount of Rs.18,150/- would be granted as per the law laid down in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), for loss of consortium Rs.48,400/- and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-would be granted. Taking into the age of the deceased, multiplier of 18 would be applicable. On the conventional heads for loss of estate amount of Rs.18,150/- would be granted as per the law laid down in case of Pranay Sethi (supra), for loss of consortium Rs.48,400/- and for funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-would be granted. Thus, I calculate the compensation as under:- S. No. Head Calculation 1. Income of the deceased @ 4500 per month Rs.4500x12=Rs.54000 p.a. 2. 40% of (1) above to be added as future prospects Rs.21600/- S. No.1 + S. No.2 Rs.75600/- 3. One Fourth deduction as personal expenses of the deceased Rs.18900/- 4. Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Rs.56700x18=Rs.10,20,600/- 5. Loss of estate Rs.18,150/- 6. Consortium to wife Rs.48,400/- 7. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Compensation (S. No.4+5+6+7) Rs.11,02,150/- 11. In view of the above, the award is passed to the above extent. The defendants/respondents are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.11,02,150/- to the appellants No.1 to 4. 12.Considering the age of the claimants, I deem fit proper that the distribution of the compensation amount would be to the extent of 75% to appellants No.1 & 2, who are the wife & daughter of the deceased and rest of 25% of the amount would be distributed to the appellants No.3 & 4, who are the parents of the deceased. The Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned district shall ensure the benefit of compensation in hands of the claimants. 13. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the appeal is allowed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs(s).