JUDGMENT Deepak Verma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 2nd March, 1998, passed by 1st Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 189 of 1990. 2. Tribunal has dismissed the claim of appellants on the ground, that the accident by the vehicle in question, could not be established. Feeling aggrieved appellants are before us in appeal. 3. Few facts, material for deciding this appeal, are mentioned hereinbelow: Appellant's son Subodh, aged about 22 years, a newly Commissioned Officer, holding rank of 2nd Lieutenant had come to Mhow (Indore) to undergo a training of Young Officers Course for a period of two months. 4. On 31st May, 1990, he was returning from Indore to Mhow on his scooter, bearing registration No. PIA-7785. Somewhere between Rau and Kishanganj, a tanker bearing registration No. MP-09-D-3105 was coming from opposite direction. The said tanker overtook another vehicle going in front of the said tanker, and in the process, had lost its control. In the meanwhile deceased, who was coming on a scooter from opposite direction, was violently dashed by the said tanker. Deceased had fallen on the ground. This accident was witnessed by Jagdish Chandra Yadav (A.W. 2). This witness had, then, noted registration number of the tanker, as also of the scooter, which was being driven by deceased. 5. It is said that he also made inquiry from the driver of tanker, who had assured him, that he would take the injured in his tanker to the nearby hospital so as to get necessary medical treatment for him. Believing the version of driver of tanker, this witness left for his house. He, however, did not report the matter to Police Station immediately, as he was not certain with regard to the intensity of injuries sustained by the deceased. 6. However, on 2nd June, 1990, a news was published in Hindi daily Nai Diniya in its Under edition under the caption of, "Officer was murdered". In the said news item details of the dead body of a young army officer being found near Keshri Steels, Dewas, was mentioned. The name of office? was also given, he was holding rank of 2nd Lieutenant in Army. Apart from other details scooter number of the deceased was also mentioned. In the said news item details of the dead body of a young army officer being found near Keshri Steels, Dewas, was mentioned. The name of office? was also given, he was holding rank of 2nd Lieutenant in Army. Apart from other details scooter number of the deceased was also mentioned. Since, this witness had already noted not only the registration of tanker, but, also of the scooter, he got suspicious and, then, went to Police Station, Mhow, so as to lodge First Information Report. But, since place of incident fell within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, he was directed to lodge the report at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar. He, then, lodged First Information Report (Ex. P. 1) on 2nd June, 1990 at about 12 noon. 7. In the said First Information Report, he had given registration number of tanker as offending vehicle and manner in which accident had taken place. He had also given registration number of scooter, which, was being driven by deceased. He has further described that accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Nazeem Hussain, driver of offending tanker, at the relevant point of time. The said driver Nazeem Hussain has since died and his LRs have been brought on record. 8. At the time of lodging of First Information Report, newspaper dated 2nd June, 1990 Nai Duniya (Ex. P. 3) and a piece of paper, on which the numbers of both vehicles were mentioned, were also produced and seized by Police vide seizure memo Ex. P.2 and was proved by this witness only. 9. After lodging First Information Report and seizure of papers, as aforesaid. Police machinery started moving. Dead body of Subodh was also recovered from the gate of Keshri Steels, Dewas and was sent for autopsy. Since details of offending vehicle tanker was given, it was seized. After completion of necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of offending vehicle under Section 304A of the Penal Code in the competent Criminal Court. But on account of his death, the said criminal proceedings against driver of offending vehicle had abated and consequently the criminal case was dropped. 10. After completion of necessary investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the driver of offending vehicle under Section 304A of the Penal Code in the competent Criminal Court. But on account of his death, the said criminal proceedings against driver of offending vehicle had abated and consequently the criminal case was dropped. 10. Claims Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence adduced by appellants, came to the conclusion that it could not be established by appellants that accident was caused by said tanker, which was being driven by deceased Nazeem Hussain and was owned by respondent No. 1 Mehmood Khan and was insured, at the relevant point of time, with respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company. Tribunal has disbelieved the solitary evidence of eye-witness Jagdish Chandra Yadav (A.W. 1), mainly on the ground, that his conduct was not that of a normal human being, it has also been criticized on the ground that he has acted only after publication of the news item in Mai Duniya. 11. Thus, it would be necessary for us to examine and scrutinize his evidence with microscopic greater details, which, we would do at a later stage. 12. However, it has not been disputed before us, that deceased was 2nd Lieutenant in Army and has come for a short course at Mhow. He had met with an unfortunate and tragic death, may be on account of accident, or, he might have been murdered. It has also not been disputed before us, that the tanker bearing registration No. MP-9D-3105 Was owned by respondent No. 1 and was being driven at the relevant point of lime by deceased Nazeem Hussain. This fact is further not disputed that at the time, tanker had met with an accident, it was insured with respondent No. 3, Oriental Insurance Company. 13. Even though, Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition, as mentioned above, but has still worked out the amount of compensation that could have been awarded to the appellants, if, it could be successfully proved, that death of Subodh was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of tanker by its driver deceased Nazeem Hussain. A sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- was assessed as total compensation payable to the appellants. 14. It was further directed by Tribunal in the impugned award that amount of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- paid to appellants by Insurance Company, would be recoverable by it. 15. A sum of Rs. 1,90,000/- was assessed as total compensation payable to the appellants. 14. It was further directed by Tribunal in the impugned award that amount of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- paid to appellants by Insurance Company, would be recoverable by it. 15. Since claim petition has been dismissed, therefore, it is necessary for us to ascertain, if death of Subodh was on account of road accident, caused by said offending tanker, driven by deceased Nazeem. For the said purposes, it is necessary to examine the evidence of Jagdish Chandra Yadav (A.W. 2). 16. No doubt, it is true, that after having seen the accident on 31st May, 1990 at about 4.30 in the evening, Jagdish Chandra Yadav (A.W. 2) did not take trouble of going to Police Station to lodge the First Information Report. He was woken up from his slumber only when he had read newspaper on 2nd June, 1990. He was then able to co-relate the accident and death of a young officer in the said accident. He then came into action and lodged the First Information Report. He also gave a copy of newspaper, as also the original piece of paper on which he had noted down numbers of both vehicles. 17. Such a conduct of this witness has been severely criticized by learned Counsel for Insurance Company on the ground of material omissions and contradictions in First Information Report and his evidence recorded in Court. In First Information Report, there is a mention that he was travelling on a Rajdoot motor cycle; deceased was dragged to a certain distance; it was raining heavily that day. There is no mention with regard to his talk with the driver of tanker. Whereas, while giving evidence in Court he had said that he was going on a scooter; the offending vehicle had come to a halt soon after it had dashed with scooter, which was being driven by deceased Subodh. He further deposed that tanker had stopped; driver had got down from vehicle, who had told him that even though accident has taken place, but he will carry the injured in his tanker to a nearby hospital for treatment. 18. He further deposed that tanker had stopped; driver had got down from vehicle, who had told him that even though accident has taken place, but he will carry the injured in his tanker to a nearby hospital for treatment. 18. His evidence has further been criticized on the ground that, if, it had been raining so heavily on the said date, then, it would not be possible for him to find out a dry piece of paper to note the vehicle numbers. 19. As has already been held by long catena of cases that in the case of motor accident strict rule of evidence is not applicable. It is to be established prima facie that accident had taken place with a motor vehicle and out of the use of said motor vehicle, either injury has been caused, or, it had resulted into death of a victim. If this much is established by the claimants, then, nothing more is required to be proved. The underlying purpose of this is that innocent victims of road accidents should not suffer for want of strict proof of accident and drivers and owners do not go scot-free on account of this. If some doubt or obscurity is there then benefit should accrue to the victims. In the case in hand, it has been quite successfully established that it was aforesaid tanker only, which had caused the accident on account of its rash and negligent driving, thus, cutting short life of a young Army Officer. Thus, it would be fairly reasonable to infer the culpability by the driver, in the sequence of events mentioned above. 20. As against the evidence of eye-witness Jagdish Chandra Yadav (A.W. 2), respondents have not led any evidence. It was also not put in the cross-examination of this eye-witness that he was speaking falsehood. There is no reason why he would be telling a lie as he had no axe to grind against the respondents, nor had any advantage in giving false evidence in favour of appellants. He was certainly an independent eye-witness. His conduct also does not show or reflect any unnatural behaviour. In fact, he being a conscious and law abiding citizen, on his own went to the police station to lodge First Information Report, so that necessary action in the matter could be taken up. He was certainly an independent eye-witness. His conduct also does not show or reflect any unnatural behaviour. In fact, he being a conscious and law abiding citizen, on his own went to the police station to lodge First Information Report, so that necessary action in the matter could be taken up. After going through his evidence, we find that the same inspires confidence and was of sterling quality. In absence of any positive evidence led in contrary by the respondents, it is proper and logical to accept the evidence of Jagdish Chandra Yadav (A.W. 2). This witness had also identified the driver of tanker, Nazeem Hussain, while he was in custody. Tanker was also seized by Police. Criminal case was registered against driver, but was abated and had to be dropped on account of his death, aforesaid chain of circumstances would conclusively prove involvement of tanker in road accident with scooter, killing Subodh. 21. For some minor omissions, his evidence cannot be discarded. It may also be pertinent to mention here that his evidence was recorded almost four years after the date of accident, thus, human memory is likely to falter at some place. If he had given exact version in vivid description then it would have been termed as a "tutored witness". His conduct after going through news of Nai Duniya, is to be appreciated, as he acted in promptitude ever since then. Had he delayed lodging of First Information Report, even after going through news item, then, it could have been termed as an afterthought, or, he had hatched a conspiracy against respondents. Even, if some omissions have occurred the same are not so vital to discard his evidence in toto, 22. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 Insurance Company has also submitted that looking to the injuries sustained by deceased and as found in the post-mortem report, it is not possible to come to a conclusion that same could have been sustained in motor accident. 23. Even though, it is not clear, as to which part of tanker had first hit the deceased but looking to the fact that tanker had collided with the scooter, such injuries, which were found on the body of deceased, could have been sustained or caused in the accident. 23. Even though, it is not clear, as to which part of tanker had first hit the deceased but looking to the fact that tanker had collided with the scooter, such injuries, which were found on the body of deceased, could have been sustained or caused in the accident. Here, it may also be pertinent to mention that the scooter which was seized from the spot shows that it was damaged severely on the front side which could be caused only if there was an impact with a heavy moving object. May be the bumper of the tanker, which is of steel, had some sharp edges, causing the injuries of the nature sustained by deceased. 24. During course of investigation, Chief Medical Officer, Dewas was asked to send his opinion with regard to injuries, as mentioned in post-mortem report of deceased Subodh. The Chief Medical Officer has mentioned that injuries explained in autopsy report can be occurred in accident. This document has been marked as Ex.P.15 and has been proved by Dr. Arun Dube (A.W. 7), who has also proved autopsy report. 25. Dr. Arun Dube (A.W. 7) has stated that in his opinion, the injuries, which were sustained by deceased, could be caused in accident. Looking to the documentary and oral evidence, available on record it is established beyond any doubt, that deceased had sustained severe bodily injuries on account of heavy impact of the tanker with scooter which was being driven by driver at the relevant point of time in a rash and negligent manner. 26. After critically going through the other evidence, available on record, we have no doubt in our mind that deceased Subodh had died on account of a motor accident which was caused by a tanker bearing registration No. MP-09 D-3105, as it was being driven at a high speed beyond manageable control. 27. In the said case, even though the accident had taken place on Agra-Mumbai Road somewhere between Kishanganj and Rau, a place close to Mhow, but, surprisingly, dead body was found almost 50 kms. away from tlie scene of accident on main Agra-Mumbai Road, inside near Keshri Steels at Dewas. 27. In the said case, even though the accident had taken place on Agra-Mumbai Road somewhere between Kishanganj and Rau, a place close to Mhow, but, surprisingly, dead body was found almost 50 kms. away from tlie scene of accident on main Agra-Mumbai Road, inside near Keshri Steels at Dewas. For this also, learned Counsel for respondent submitted that it has not been established that deceased had died on account of any accident caused by the aforesaid offending tanker, otherwise there was no reason why the dead body should have been found 50 kms. away. 28. For this, we have to once again refer to the evidence of Jagdish Chandra Yadav (A.W. 2) to find the answer of this query. He has categorically deposed that after accident, when, tanker had come to a halt and driver had got down from vehicle, A.W. 2 Jagdish Chandra Yadav was given an assurance by him that injured would be taken to a hospital so as to get necessary medical treatment for him. But, it appears that this promise was given to him only with an intention to get away from the scene of occurrence as early as possible. After taking Subodh in his vehicle on the aforesaid pretext, he might have decided to do away with the body so that Subodh may expire due to injuries, or, he might have thought of getting rid of all troubles by throwing body at a secluded place. In our opinion, this might have happened from the time Subodh was taken in tanker till body was actually thrown near the Gate of Keshri Steels at Dewas. In the process tanker must have travelled a distance of 50 kms. This could be the reason dead body was found at a distance from the place of accident. There could not have been any better evidence than what was led by the appellants, which leads to an irresistible conclusion that tanker was involved in the accident. Unfortunately, driver did not appear to say anything in the matter. 29. Thus, the aforesaid possibility of throwing the body at the gate of Keshri Steels cannot be completely ruled out. In our considered opinion, deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which, was caused by deceased Nazeem Hussain on account of his rash and negligent driving of the tanker. 30. 29. Thus, the aforesaid possibility of throwing the body at the gate of Keshri Steels cannot be completely ruled out. In our considered opinion, deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, which, was caused by deceased Nazeem Hussain on account of his rash and negligent driving of the tanker. 30. Now, the question that arises for consideration is, as to what amount appellants would be entitled to as compensation. Deceased was freshly Commissioned Officer, holding rank of 2nd Lieutenant in the Army. Ex. P.7 is his last pay certificate. As per this certificate, his carry home salary was Rs. 3,274/- per month. 31. Appellant No. 2 Smt. Usha Kaushik has deposed that her deceased son used to send Rs. 2,500/- every month. After calculations, we are afraid, it may not be possible for him to save so much of amount for sending it to his parents. After all he must be spending some amount on himself. In our most modest computation, he might have been sending atleast Rs. 2,000/- every month to his parents. Thus, the annual dependency of the appellants would come to Rs. 24,000/-. Deceased was aged 22 years at the time of accident and appellants were aged about 54 and 47 years in the year 1990. Both the appellants i.e., parents are alive today, as they have attended the hearing. Thus, keeping all these facts in mind, it would be just and proper to apply multiplier of 15. Thus, the total dependency would come to Rs. 3,60,000/-. To this, a further sum of Rs. 40,000/- can safely be added towards various other heads, such as loss of love and affection; loss of company and funeral expenses etc. Thus, the appellants would be entitled to a total sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. 32. However, no amount of compensation is being awarded to the claimants towards future prospects of deceased, as with the passage of time, even if he had become a senior officer in Army, he would have got married and procreated children. Thus, dependency of appellants was bound to be reduced substantially. Apart from above, a lump sum payment would take care of the loss under this head. 33. Thus, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is hereby set aside. Appellants are held entitled in all for a sum of Rs. Thus, dependency of appellants was bound to be reduced substantially. Apart from above, a lump sum payment would take care of the loss under this head. 33. Thus, the appeal is allowed, the impugned award is hereby set aside. Appellants are held entitled in all for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation payable by respondents jointly and severally. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 4% per annum from the date of application till it is actually paid to appellants. The interim amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- already paid to appellants shall stand adjusted. 34. The respondent No. 3, Insurance Company shall bear the costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 1,000/-, if certified.