BHAWANI SINGH, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, dated 28. 9. 1996 in Claim Case No. 6 of 1992.

( 2 ) CLAIM was filed by Balaram Patel (deceased ). He died during the pendency of the claim; therefore, substituted by mannulal, son of Jagru Patel, brother of deceased Balaram Patel. It is stated that on 17. 5. 1992 at 10 a. m. when the deceased dhanwarin Bai was crossing the road to throw away domestic garbage, truck No. MOR 8791, driven by driver Surendra Pal singh, hit her resulting in serious injuries to her head, hands and feet. She died instantaneously. The deceased was 65 years old making both ends meet by earning as a labourer, however, she possessed good health. She used to earn Rs. 1,200 per month and after spending on herself, she used to spend Rs. 700 on the family. For her death, claim for Rs. 1,09,000 has been made.

( 3 ) RESPONDENTS have denied taking place of the accident and lodging of report in this connection but admit pendency of case against them. Further statement is that the vehicle was insured with the insurance company. The deceased was not earning anything due to old age and feeble health. Claim is exaggerated and does not take into consideration future uncertainties of life.

( 4 ) TRIBUNAL found that the deceased died in the accident but it could not be established that vehicle No. MOR 8791 driven by driver Surendra Pal Singh committed it. It is also found that the claimant was not dependent on the deceased who was 70 years old and was not earning anything. Consequently, the claim has been rejected. Feeling aggrieved by this award, present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for parties heard. Record perused.

( 5 ) FIRST question for consideration is whether finding of the Tribunal that the accident was not committed by the truck driven by Surendra Pal Singh is correct or the same is liable to be set aside. Facts disclose that deceased died in the accident involving the truck. Truck was seen by bystanders but registration number of the same could not be noticed since it was going at fast speed. However, case was registered with the police which arrested the driver and seized the vehicle. It were respondent Surendra Pal Singh and his truck which were taken into custody and possession by the police. Surendra Pal singh, driver admits that he was arrested by the police and his vehicle detained in the police station. He also admits that case with respect to this accident is in the court in which he was the accused. Raghunath, witness of claimant has also stated that this truck was detained by the police in con nection with this case and it has been identified in the police station. Therefore, it is clear that it is this truck, driven by surendra Pal Singh, which was involved in the accident as a result of which deceased died. Finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, reversed.

( 6 ) NEXT question is whether claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, to what extent. Claim was raised by Balaram Patel, husband of the deceased. However, he died during the pendency of the case, therefore, substituted by the present claimant who happens to be the brother of the deceased claimant. There is no difficulty in holding him legal heir/dependant of the deceased. The statement of the claimant and his witnesses is that the deceased was 60 years old, maintaining a good health and was earning Rs. 1,200 per month and sparing rs. 700 for the family. Autopsy report exh. P-4, fixes the age of deceased at 70. Therefore, we are of the opinion that this age must have been stated to the doctor by the relation of the deceased in addition to the observations of the doctor himself. Therefore, the deceased has to be taken as 70 years old at the time of accident. With this background, the yearly dependency of the family would come to Rs. 8,400. At this age, proper multiplier would be 5. In addition to this, the claimant would be entitled for funeral expenses of Rs. 2,00

Click Here to Read the rest of this document