JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed in OP.No.435 of 2001, dated 29.09.2005 by the I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. Appellant is the respondent No.2, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the petitioners and respondent No.3 is the respondent No.1 in O.P.No.435 of 2001. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners have filed O.P.No.435 of 2001 under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 [respondent No.3 and appellant herein] jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners stated that on 30.07.2000 at about 03.00 a.m. Shivanarayana Laxman was standing on the side of the road near Drivers Hotel, Perkit Village on Nagpur to Hyderabad road, at the same time a lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 driven by its driver in the rash and negligent manner with high speed came from Hyderabad side and dashed Shivanarayana Laxman due to which he fell down and the front wheel of the lorry ran over him, resulting which he received head injuries, admitted at Government Hospital Armoor where he died while undergoing treatment on the same day at 04.00 a.m. The deceased was a labourer, earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and contributing his entire earnings to the family. 5. Respondent No.3 - respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 6.1 Appellant - respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the age, avocation of the deceased and further contended that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-3996, which is loaded with sand, stopped the lorry in the middle of the road near Perkit Chorastha, on that day, the deceased immediately jumped from the said lorry and while crossing the road the accident has taken place. As such the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-3996 is responsible for the accident and he do not possess valid driving license to drive the lorry. 6.2 Armoor police has registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2000, dated 30.07.2000 against the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-3655. As such the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-3996 is responsible for the accident and he do not possess valid driving license to drive the lorry. 6.2 Armoor police has registered a case in Crime No.141 of 2000, dated 30.07.2000 against the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-3655. Passing number of the lorry is not clear and no lorry is existing with the passing number as per the final report of the police Armoor, dated 30.10.2001. Police Armoor has filed a final report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Armoor as vehicle un-detected. 6.3 Respondents Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners, filed claim petition against the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655, the above said lorry is nothing to do with the accident and there is no police record to show that the above said lorry is involved in the accident. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners, ought to have taken proper steps against the crime vehicle No.MH-3655 and not on the lorry that they have chosen vide MH-31-W-3655 and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 7. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH 31 W 3655 driven by its drivers? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 8. Respondent No.1 – petitioner No.1 is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2-B.Anjaneyulu, PW3-B.Chandraiah and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Junior Assistant of appellant - respondent No.2 is examined as RW1-Devrao Pawar and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. 9. The learned Tribunal, after analysing the evidence of the parties with that of the documents has partly allowed the claim application by awarding compensation of Rs.3,35,000/- with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the original petition till the date of deposit, directing the appellant- respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount with interest thereon which is impugned in the appeal. 10.1 Learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal ought to have fixed the liability on the owner of sand lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-3996 and on the deceased by considering the plea that the driver of the sand lorry stopped in the middle of the road without following traffic rules and without valid driving license and that the deceased jumped from the sand lorry in the middle of the road to cross it without observing the moving vehicles. 10.2 The learned Tribunal erred in not recognizing the facts that the FIR did not refer the lorry No.MH-31-W-3655 as the crime vehicle as the police have filed a final report that the crime vehicle is undetected and the liability can only be attributed to the owner of the lorry. 10.3 The learned Tribunal failed to observe that lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 was not involved in the accident and the suspected crime lorry bearing No.MH-3655 was not insured with the appellant – insurance company and prayed to allow the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal has appreciated the facts of the case in proper perspective, rightly awarded the compensation and no interference is called for. 12. It is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal that respondent No.3 is not a necessary party. 13. Heard learned counsel and perused the material. 14. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners have made out a case that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of driver of lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 or MH-3655, if so? ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it require interference of this Court or not. POINT NOs.1 and 2: 15. Ex.A1 and Ex.B1 are the copies of the FIR showing the involvement of lorry bearing No.MH-3655. Ex.B2 is the letter addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Armoor, to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Armoor seeking permission that passing number of the lorry is not clear since no eyewitness has noticed, no lorry is existing with the above said passing number [MH-3655] and sought permission to close the same. 16. Ex.B2 is the letter addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Armoor, to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Armoor seeking permission that passing number of the lorry is not clear since no eyewitness has noticed, no lorry is existing with the above said passing number [MH-3655] and sought permission to close the same. 16. Final report [Ex.B3] is filed by the police Armoor under Section 173 of Cr.P.C dated 30.10.2001 in FIR No.141/2000 holding that passing number of the lorry MH-3655 is not clear, sincere efforts are made throughout the year, no clues have come forth regarding the vehicle number and no lorry is existing with passing No.MH-3655 and permission is accorded to refer the case as undetected. Full description of the lorry registration is not given in the FIR [Exs.A1 and B1], which led to filing a final report by police Armoor. 17. Complaint is given by Chakali Yadaiah on the date of accident at 10.00 a.m., who is the driver of lorry bearing No.AP-28- U-3996. Police Armoor have not taken steps to ascertain the correct description of the vehicle number for the reasons best known to them and the driver of the lorry is the best witness to speak about the accident and he neither choose to appear before the Court nor was examined by the respondent No.2 - insurance company. 18. Ex.A3 is the registration particulars of the motor vehicle No.MH-31-W-3655 with engine No.692D02951105; chassis NO.364052505685. 19. The evidence of PW1 [respondent No.1 herein] is the same as stated in the claim petition. In her cross examination she stated that she has not filed any other case except the claim petition and that she has not filed any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. She denied the suggestion that crime vehicle No.MH-W-3655 is not correct there by police have closed the case as un-detected and that Ex.A4 is a false document. 20.1 PW2-B.Anjaneyulu is an eye witness to the accident and he deposed that on 30.07.2000 at about 03.00 a.m., accident has taken place at Perkit cross road. Himself, Laxman were returning from Velpore in a lorry after loading the sand. 20.1 PW2-B.Anjaneyulu is an eye witness to the accident and he deposed that on 30.07.2000 at about 03.00 a.m., accident has taken place at Perkit cross road. Himself, Laxman were returning from Velpore in a lorry after loading the sand. Lorry driver has stopped the lorry near a hotel at Perkit and they all got down and standing by the side of the road near a hotel to take tea, at the same time lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 came in rash and negligent manner, dashed Laxman, front wheel of the lorry ran over Laxman, sustained multiple and grave injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Armoor, where he died. They were getting Rs.200/- as wages per day. 20.2 In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the complaint lodged by Ch. Yadaiah shows the crime vehicle number as MH-3655 and that lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 is not at all involved in the accident. 21.1 The evidence of RW1 is that the claim petition is filed against lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655, neither the vehicle in the FIR nor the vehicle in the claim petition was registered-insured with respondent No.2-insurance company and respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation. 21.2 In his cross examination, he stated that in Ex.A3-engine No.692D02951105 and chassis No.364052505685 was insured with National Insurance Company under policy No.158881 for the period from 06.04.2000 to 05.04.2001 and the vehicle is shown as MH-31-W-3655, the owner is shown as Shri Charanjeet Singh and Ex.A3 is issued by RTO Nagpur, he do not know whether the police investigated the case properly or not and they got filed Exs.B2 and B3 without proper investigation. He denied the suggestion that in collusion with insurance company and owner of the lorry, Exs.B2 and B3 were filed. 22. The evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident supports the claim of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners with regard to the manner in which the accident has taken place at Perkit. The learned Tribunal has rightly observed that the driver of the lorry is the best witness to speak about the accident and he neither choose to appear before the Court nor was examined by the respondent No.2 – insurance company. It is the case of the appellant – insurance company that the deceased jumped from his lorry and while crossing the road the alleged accident has taken place. It is the case of the appellant – insurance company that the deceased jumped from his lorry and while crossing the road the alleged accident has taken place. No such suggestion is put to either PW1 or PW2. 23. The evidence adduced by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – petitioners goes to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.MH-31- W-3655 on 03.07.2000 at 03.00 a.m. Hence the respondents Nos.1 and 2- petitioners could able to prove that the accident has occurred with lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655. 24. It is the evidence of PW1 that deceased used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, which is also supported by the evidence of PW2, who is a co-labourer. The evidence of PW3 is that the deceased Laxman was doing coolie work, earning Rs.200/- per day and contributing his entire income to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners. 25. Ex.A4 is the income certificate got issued by the Sarpanch dated 05.05.2002 which shows that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has treated the deceased as unskilled labour and his income is fixed at Rs.10,000/- per month as minimum wages and taken 26 days in a month and arrived at Rs.31,200/- per annum [100 x 26 x 12]. Tribunal has taken that the deceased is in the age group of 40 to 45 years and the appropriate multiplier is taken as ‘15’ as per the second schedule to Section 163-A of MV Act and deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenditure i.e., 31,200 x 15 = Rs.4,68,000/- and 1/3 rd deduction is Rs.1,56,000/-, then loss of dependency arrived at Rs.3,12,000/- [4,68,000 – 1,56,000]. Further, awarded Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for loss of consortium to respondents No.1 - petition No.1, Rs.500/- towards transport expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation arrived by the learned Tribunal is Rs.3,35,000/-. 26. The appellant-insurance company has not made out any case to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.435 of 2001 dated 29.09.2005. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not require interference of this Court. Appeal lack merits, deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Hence points are answered accordingly. 27. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not require interference of this Court. Appeal lack merits, deserves no consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Hence points are answered accordingly. 27. In the result, MACMA is dismissed without cost. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.