JUDGMENT : Suddala Chalapathi Rao, J. Heard Mr. N.Chanddra Sekhar, learned counsel representing Mr. A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant- insurance company and Mr. T.Venkat Rathnam, learned counsel representing Mr. Vidiyala Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ insurance company challenging the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.573 of 2015, dated 07.04.2022, thereby seeking to set-aside the award against the insurance company. 3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under: 3.1. On 27.12.2014, M.Krishna @ Krishnamachary (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-BJ-7589 to his house from Nadergul, when reached beside Sri Nilaya Township Kaman, Badangpet at about 7.00 p.m., one rider of Pulsar motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-BR-1683 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased in a opposite direction, as a result, deceased fell down and sustained head and multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Om Sai Hospital, Balapur and later shifted to Gandhi Hospital, and while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 30.12.2014. 3.2. The Police, Meerpet, Police Station registered a case in Crime No.829/2014 and laid a charge sheet before the competent Court. 3.3. The claimants, i.e., wife, children and parents of the deceased, have filed claim petition against owner-cum-rider of the crime vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Rule 475 (1) (b) of APMV Act Rules, 1989 r/w Section 140(c) of MV Act, before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- together with costs and interest from the date of accident till realization. 3.4. It was contended that the deceased was aged 35 years, hale and healthy as on the date of the accident and was working as Goldsmith and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the same to the welfare of his family and because of death of deceased, claim petitioners have lost their love and affection and they become destitute. 4. 4. The respondent No.5 herein, who is the rider-cum-owner of the crime vehicle, filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended inter alia that he is not involved in the alleged accident, that the Police have falsely implicated him in the criminal case in order to file the claim against the insurance company, and that even assuming that accident occurred due to negligence of this respondent, it is for the insurance company to pay the compensation, as the crime vehicle was duly insured with it and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and inter alia contended that the owner of the crime vehicle did not inform this respondent in respect of the factum of accident in active collusion with the claimants; that the rider of crime vehicle was not holding driving license to drive the motorcycle. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. They further submitted that the owner of the crime vehicle has denied his involvement in the accident, and also contended that the criminal case filed against him ended in acquittal in C.C.No.80 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate and the learned Magistrate gave a categorical finding that the crime vehicle was implicated only to facilitate the family members of the deceased to file claim petition for compensation and on that ground itself, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : i) Whether an accident occurred on 27.12.2014 at about 19.00 hours beside Sri Nilaya Township Kaman, Badangpet, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, causing the death of the deceased in a road accident, due to rash and negligent driving of rider of Pulsar motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BR-1683 being driven by respondent No.1 ? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what amount and from which respondents? iii) To what relief? 7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2were examined and Exs.B1 to 5 were marked. 8. ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what amount and from which respondents? iii) To what relief? 7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2were examined and Exs.B1 to 5 were marked. 8. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, RWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.B1 to B5, came to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent riding of the crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.17,09,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The liability was fixed on the rider-cum-owner of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.5 herein and the appellant-insurance company as jointly and severally, to pay the said compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant- insurance company of motorcycle filed the present appeal, inter alia, contending that the appellant i.e., insurance company of the crime vehicle, is not liable to pay the compensation as there is no evidence to show that the rider of the crime vehicle was involved in the accident, as the learned Magistrate while acquitting the accused/ rider of motorcycle has categorically held that the accused is implicated only to facilitate the family members of the deceased to file the claim petition. 10. Learned counsel for appellant further contended that the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- without there being any documentary evidence and therefore, since no document is filed to prove the income of the deceased, the Tribunal ought to have taken Rs.4,500/- per month as notional income as per the decision of Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., & others, AIR 2011 SC 2951 . He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier of ‘16’, instead of ‘15’ where the age of deceased fell in the group of 35 to 40 years, and as such, it is erroneous and the award is liable to be set aside. 11. Ltd., & others, AIR 2011 SC 2951 . He further submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier of ‘16’, instead of ‘15’ where the age of deceased fell in the group of 35 to 40 years, and as such, it is erroneous and the award is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimants submitted that the Tribunal, on due appreciation of the evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation and there is no need to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal. A. After hearing the submissions on both sides and having given earnest consideration to their submissions, perused the record. B. The only point which falls for consideration before this Court is, whether the findings arrived by the Tribunal are just and proper and sustainable ? 12. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, despite clear acquittal in the criminal case registered against the rider of the crime vehicle (respondent No.5 herein) and as the delay of three days in lodging the FIR when the respondent No.5 denied, the Tribunal erroneously fastened liability on the appellant without proper appreciation of the evidence of R.W.2. 13. As seen from the evidence on record, R.W.2-rider of the crime vehicle, in his cross-examination, admitted that FIR was registered against him and as per Ex.A5 in column-8 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector has recorded that ‘left side foot rest broken’ and one of his uncles Yadagiri Rao, while collecting the crime vehicle after inspection by the MVI, has mentioned that rider of the crime vehicle had received fracture injury, which draws specific inference to the notice of this Court as to the involvement of the crime vehicle in the disputed accident, which resulted in death of the deceased. 14. 14. Further, P.W.2-A.Ramulu, who is an eye witness to the accident, deposed that on the fateful day of the accident, the deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle from Nadargul to Bagangpet, and reached Srinilaya Township in front of her pan shop, at that time, one rider of motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BR-1683 came from Badangpet, drove in rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, deceased fell down from the motorcycle and received grievous injuries including head injury and immediately, he was shifted to Hospital in 108 vehicle. Further, it is stated that the rider of the crime vehicle has also received injuries and that later he came to know that the deceased succumbed to injuries and in the cross-examination nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony and from the evidence of P.W.2, it can be inferred that the crime vehicle was involved in the disputed accident and it is settled law that mere acquittal in the criminal case and findings of the criminal case are not binding on the civil Court, as such, the contentions of the appellant-insurance company are hereby rejected. 15. Insofar as the delay in lodging FIR, having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is natural for a person suffering from fracture grievous injuries to require medical assistance for some time, and therefore, mere three days delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the case of the claim petitioners. 16. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the crime vehicle driven by its rider-respondent No.5 is involved in the disputed accident and deceased succumbed to injuries. The said fact was supported by the evidence of eye witness i.e., P.W.2 and contents of Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge sheet, Ex.A3-Inquest report, Ex.A4-Post-mortem examination report and Ex.A5-MVI report, and the respondent No.5 though acquitted in a criminal case, cannot escape from the tortious liability. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in holding the respondent No.5 and the appellant-insurance company are liable to pay the compensation. 17. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, perusal of the record would disclose that as per Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge-sheet, Ex.A3- inquest report and Ex.A4-PME report, the age of the deceased was shown as 35 years as on the date of the accident. 17. Insofar as the multiplier is concerned, perusal of the record would disclose that as per Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2-charge-sheet, Ex.A3- inquest report and Ex.A4-PME report, the age of the deceased was shown as 35 years as on the date of the accident. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “ 42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Claims Tribunal and the courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds place in para 19 of Sarla Verma [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] read with para 42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness, para 42 is extracted below : (Sarla Verma case [Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 770 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002] , SCC p. 140) “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas [Kerala SRTC v. Susamma Thomas, (1994) 2 SCC 176 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 335] , Trilok Chandra [UP SRTC v. Trilok Chandra, (1996) 4 SCC 362 ] and Charlie [New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, (2005) 10 SCC 720 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1657] ), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is, M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M- 15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 18. In the light of above decision, since the age of the deceased was 35 years , the proper multiplier is ‘16’ and the learned Tribunal was justified in applying proper multiplier and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for appellant is rejected. 19. The other contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. 19. The other contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.9,000/-. Insofar as the income of the deceased, the claimants stated that the deceased was working as Goldsmith and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Perusal of Ex.A2–charge sheet and Ex.A3–inquest report shows that the deceased was a goldsmith. In the said circumstances, the work of goldsmith is definitely a skilled work and the deceased being the age of 35 years, this Court is of the considered view that the deceased could have earned not less than Rs.9,000/- per month. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fixing his monthly income at Rs.9,000/- and therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal is valid, and the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is rejected. 20. In the light of the above findings, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant-insurance company failed to make out any substantial ground warranting interference of this Court with the well considered order of the learned Tribunal. 21. In the result, Appeal is dismissed. The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The claimants are entitled to the apportionment of the amount as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.