K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J.
1. The Insurance Company with whom the alleged offending vehicle was insured, was the respondent No. 2 before the Claims Tribunal in M.A.C. No. 23 of 1986 in the Court of the Member, Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur who being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 24.4.87 has preferred this miscellaneous appeal.
2. The case of the claimant before the M.A.C.T. was that on 14.2.86 at about 7.45 p.m. while her husband Trinath Pella of village Kumarbegpalli was standing near Bir Hanuman Temple, a truck bearing registration No. ORG 9709 which was coming from the direction of Chhatrapur being driven rashly and negligently, had run over her husband as a result of which her husband died instantaneously at the spot. According to the claimant the deceased who was serving as a watchman and earning a salary of Rs. 900/- per month, was of 35 years of age and was in a good health at the time of his death. He was survived by his widow (claimant), two minor children and his old mother. A sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was claimed as compensation from the respondent. Respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No. 1 is the insurer.
3. The claimant had examined two witnesses, P.W. 1 being a co-villager of the deceased and an eye witness to the incident who had lodged the F.I.R. before police s and per Ext-2 and herself as P.W. 2. Nobody was examined on behalf of the respondents. Before the Tribunal, P.W. 1 who was an eye-witness to the occurrence, has deposed that on 14.2.86 at 7.45 p.m. near Kumarbegpalli Hanuman Mandir Chhaka the incident took place on the road while he was standing 15 cubits away from the place of incident. The deceased was returning from Chhatrapur side to his village by a bi-cycle and took a turn to his right to take the road to his village, when the offending vehicle ORG 9709 coming from Chhatrapur side with a terrific speed without blowing the horn dashed against the deceased inspite of applying the sudden brake. He (P.W. 1) asked the driver to stop the vehicle but the driver put off the head lights and went away with speed. According to him the deceased was about 35 years of age and was in health at the time of his death. He was working as a night watchman and was getting about Rs. 900/- per month and was survived by his widow, two minor children and his mother. In the cross-examination nothing was brought out to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. According to the Tribunal the statement of this witness gets corroboration from the F.I.R.-Ext. 2 wherein he had stated that the vehicle of the Reddy doctor case with a terrific speed and dashed against the watchman of Chattrapur N.A.C. and after the incident the and truck left the spot with a high speed. The claimant as P.W. 2 corroborated the statement of P.W. 1 in most material particulars. She had further stated in her evidence that out of the income of her husband, her husband was paying Rs. 550A per month to her towards household expenses and the rest amount was spent by him. At the time of giving her evidence, their two children were about 4 and 5 years of age and the mother of the deceased was about 60 years. In support of the age of the husband, she had filed Ext. 5.
4. The Tribunal was satisfied that the death was due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck ORG9709, and that the total income of the deceased was Rs. 671/- per month out of which deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenditure of the deceased, the total amount which come to the hands of the wife for the maintenance of the family was Rs. 5,368/- per annum, Applying a multiplier of 17 years considering the age of the deceased the Tribunal directed the present appellant to pay Rs. 91,256/- to the claimant, her minor children and the old mother of the deceased with 6% interest per annum from the date of application i.e. 4.2.86 till realisation with the consolidated cost of Rs. 400/-. It was further directed by the Tribunal that in case the Insurance Company did not pay the amount to the aforesaid claimants within a period of three months from the date of its order, it shall pay a penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till realisation. It was further directed by the Tribunal that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be deposited as fixed deposit in any branch of the State Bank of India or a Nationalised Bank in the name of each of the minor children of the deceased Manju Pellai and Raju Pellai amounting in all a sum of Rs. 40,000/- for a period of 10 years and the deposit shall be made by Sarojini Pellai as the mother-guardian and these fixed deposits shall be automatically renewed till the minors attained the age of majority. It was further directed that on attaining majority the minors shall be entitled to withdraw the fixed deposits from the Bank and in case of pre-mature death of any of the minor, the amount of that minor shall be paid to the claimant-Sarojini Pellai, the mother-guardian. The Bank was forbidden to allow any loan to be raised treating this money in fixed deposit as security at least for a period of five years. That apart lit was directed that out of the balance amount of Rs. 51,256/-, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall also be paid to the old mother of the deceased by name Rukmuna Pellai and the balance amount of Rs. 41,256/- with interest and cost shall be paid to the widow of the deceased.
5. In the present misc. appeal the quantum of money that has been awarded by the Tribunal has not been challenged. Mr. P. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company challenges the award on the sole ground that when the informant (P.W. 1) did not give the number of the vehicle in the F.I.R. though mentioned about the number in his deposition in Court the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any amount. Respondent No. 1, the owner had denied in his written statement that the vehicle had met any accident on the date alleged. Mr. Roy relied on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in case of Chhota v. Babulal Verma and Ors. reported in 1986 ACJ 898, in which case the claimant alleged that he was injured and his two bullocks died in the accident. The owner and the driver of the bus denied any involvement of the bus in the accident. There was no evidence from the eye-witnesses to show that the driver and the bus were brought to the Police Station. Neither the claimant nor any of his eye-witnesses noted the number of the bus and none of the witnesses could recognise the driver of the bus in Court. In that case the claimant failed to connect the bus with the accident for which the claim petition was dismissed. In the case of Chhota v. Babulal (supra) there was no evidence whatsoever suggesting that the injury was caused by the alleged offending bus. But in the present case, the facts are quite different. P.W. 1 had lodged the F.I.R. indicating therein that the vehicle belonged to Reddy doctor, had met the accident. In his evidence he has stated that the truck bearing registration No. ORG 9709 had caused the accident and he stated that without referring to any document. He knew the numbers of few trucks passing thereby frequently. In the F.I.R. which was written in Oriya, this witness P.W. 1 has stated categorically that the truck belongs to Lokanath Rao (Reddy doctor) being driven by Padana of village Han-sapur. Evidence has been led by the claimant in this .case to show that the offending vehicle ORG 9709 had really committed the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of that vehicle. This evidence has not been shattered in any way by the cross-examination. No evidence has been led by the owner of the Insurance Company to rebute the evidence that the truck had made the accident on the date and place as alleged. Evidence could have been led showing if the truck was engaged elsewhere at the time on the date of incident. I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal in holding that the vehicle in question had committed the accident. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this misc. appeal which is accordingly dismissed with cost of this appeal which is to be paid to respondent No. 1 of this appeal.