JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents even after repeated calls. 3. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the judgment/award dated 08.10.2007 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribag in Claim Case No.48 of 2005 whereby and whereunder, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition of the claimant appellants filed with a prayer for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 4. The brief facts involved in this case is that the claimants are respectively the father and mother of the deceased Suraj Kumar who allegedly on 02.12.2003 at about 5:30 p.m. while riding a bicycle along with Mukesh Kumar met with a motor-vehicle accident involving a trekker bearing registration no.JH-02A-2689 which was rashly and negligently driven at the relevant time and sustained injuries. Suraj Kumar and Mukesh Kumar were taken for treatment to Sadar Hospital Hazaribag, where they were declared brought dead. The driver after accident rushed away from the place of occurrence, with the trekker. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the one Kishori Prasad Mehta, police registered Sadar P.S. Case No.550 of 2003 corresponding to G.R. No.2877 of 2003 for the said accident for the offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of an unknown trekker and took up investigation of the case. After conclusion of the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet mentioning therein that the fact of accident is true but there is no clue. During the course of investigation, police on the basis of the suspicion detained the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689. After submission of the final form, protest petition was filed by the informant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag and prima facie offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code were found by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and summons were issued to the owner of vehicle-respondent no.1. JH-02A-2689. After submission of the final form, protest petition was filed by the informant in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribag and prima facie offence punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code were found by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and summons were issued to the owner of vehicle-respondent no.1. After notice, the owner of the vehicle being the opposite party-respondent no.1 filed written statement denying the factum of accident but he took the plea that the vehicle in question at the time of alleged occurrence was insured with the opposite party-respondent no.3 hence, the opposite party no.3 is liable to pay the compensation amount, if any, to be awarded in the case while the driver of the vehicle namely the opposite party-respondent no.2-Gokul Ram was set ex-parte as he neither appeared nor filed any pleadings. The insurance company filed its written statement denying the factum of accident. Though in paragraph no.16 of the claim application, it has been categorically mentioned that the respondent no.3 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in accident yet in its written statement, the opposite party-respondent no.3 did not specifically deny the same and admitted the insurance subject to verification of the policy paper. 6. On the basis of the rival pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following four issues :- (i) Whether the present claim case is maintainable? (ii) Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Trekker bearing No. JH-02A- 2689 resulting in death of late Suraj Kumar? (iii) Whether the offending vehicle was duly insured on the relevant date of accident? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled for any amount of compensation and if yes, then to what extent and against which of the O.Ps.? 7. In support of its case, the claimant altogether examined three witnesses including C.W.3- an eye witness of the occurrence and proved the F.I.R. of Sadar P.S. Case No.550 of 2003, which case was registered in connection with the said accident, which has been marked as Ext. 1. The final form submitted by the police in that case has been marked as Ext. 2. The copy of the order dated 10.03.2005 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case against the opposite party-respondent no.2 in T.R. No.1116 of 2005 has been marked as Ext. 3. 1. The final form submitted by the police in that case has been marked as Ext. 2. The copy of the order dated 10.03.2005 by which the learned Judicial Magistrate found prima facie case against the opposite party-respondent no.2 in T.R. No.1116 of 2005 has been marked as Ext. 3. The copy of the protest petition filed by the informant in connection with the said case has been marked as Ext. 4. The educational qualification certificates of the deceased Suraj Kumar has been marked as Exts. 5, 7 and 8. The copy of the postmortem report of the deceased Suraj Kumar has been marked as Ext.6. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the opposite parties. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the materials and evidence in the record dismissed the claim petition by observing that the claimants have failed to examine the informant of the case namely Kishori Prasad Mehta and Abash Khan, Suresh Mahto and Govind who according to the C.W.3 were the other occupants of the trekker in question and came to a conclusion that the claimants have failed to substantiate the fact that the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689 was actually involved in the accident in question resulting in death of the deceased and accordingly, answered the issue no. (ii) in negative. In view of the admission of the insurance company, issue no. (iii) was answered in affirmative and on the basis of the finding of the issue no. (ii), learned tribunal answered the issue no. (i) and (iv) in negative and dismissed the claim petition. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned tribunal erred in properly appreciating the evidence and failed to take note of the fact that the provision under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and strict proof of fact as required under civil suit is not to be insisted upon in a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It is further submitted that the learned tribunal failed to properly appreciate the documents proved by the claimants and erred by not considering the fact that the testimony of the eye-witness account of the C.W.3 has not even been challenged in his cross-examination and there is nothing to disbelieve his testimony regarding the factum of accident and involvement of trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689 in the said accident. JH-02A-2689 in the said accident. Hence, it is submitted that the finding of the tribunal in respect of issue no. (ii) and consequently the issue nos. (i) and (iv) be set aside, the claim amount be awarded in favour of the appellants and the opposite party no.3-insurance company be directed to pay the claim amount to the appellants. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and perusal of the record, the only point of determination in this appeal is “Whether the learned Tribunal is right in coming to a conclusion that the claimants have failed to substantiate the fact that the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689 was actually involved in the accident in question resulting in death of the deceased”. 10. Perusal of the record reveals that out of the three witnesses examined by the claimants, C.W.1-Ram Tahal Mahto has stated that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of his death on 02.12.2003 and he was running a grocery shop and was earning Rs.4000/- per month. In his cross-examination, he has stated that besides running a grocery shop, he was also studying but there is no name of the shop of the deceased nor there is any document in proof of the deceased having a shop and that he stated about the income of the deceased out of his imagination. C.W.2-Braj Kishore Mahto is the father of the deceased. He has also stated about the death of his son Suraj Kumar by a motor accident at 5:30 p.m. on 02.12.2003 and he also stated that the deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of accident and he was running a grocery shop and also that he and his wife were dependent upon the deceased. In his cross-examination, he stated that the deceased stopped studying but he did not take out the “Transfer Certificate”. The deceased was having a grocery shop. There was no name of the shop of the deceased. C.W.2 does not have any documentary evidence regarding the deceased having the shop. C.W.3-Tukan Mahto is an eye witness to the occurrence. In his affidavit, he has stated that at about 5:00 p.m. on 02.12.2003, he boarded the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689 to go from the “District Parishad Chowk”, Hazaribag to ‘Ichak’. C.W.2 does not have any documentary evidence regarding the deceased having the shop. C.W.3-Tukan Mahto is an eye witness to the occurrence. In his affidavit, he has stated that at about 5:00 p.m. on 02.12.2003, he boarded the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689 to go from the “District Parishad Chowk”, Hazaribag to ‘Ichak’. The trekker was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and the trekker dashed the cycle riders who were coming from the opposite sides. After the accident, the driver of the trekker rushed towards ‘Ichak’. The C.W.3 and other passengers of the trekker told the driver of the trekker to stop the trekker but the driver stopped the trekker near Nagwa Basti. On the next day, C.W.3 came to know that the two persons who met with an accident died and they were namely Mukesh Kumar, son of Kedar Prasad Mahto and Suraj Kumar son of Braj Kishore Mahto. In his cross-examination, the C.W.3 has stated that he was knowing the deceased five to six years prior to the occurrence. The accident took place in the flank of the road. At that time no other vehicle was passing nearby. Along with C.W.3, Abash, Suresh and Govind were also the passengers of the trekker. The name of the driver of the said trekker was Gokul Ram. Police recorded his statement on the next day of the occurrence. He went to the police on being called by Chowkidar. There were about 15 to 16 passengers in the said trekker. 11. Perusal of Ext. 1 reveals that police recorded the fardbeyan of the informant on the next day of the occurrence, i.e. on 03.12.2003 wherein he has stated about the factum of the accident and the death of the deceased Suraj Kumar and his cousin in the said accident. Perusal of Ext. 2 reveals that the vehicle in question was detained by police on suspicion during the investigation of the case. Perusal of Ext. 3 reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case against the opposite party-respondent no.2 being the driver of the said vehicle and issued summons to him. Perusal of Ext. 6 reveals that the death of the deceased occurred due to hemorrhage and abdominal bleeding caused by hard and blunt substance. 12. Perusal of Ext. 3 reveals that the learned Judicial Magistrate has found prima facie case against the opposite party-respondent no.2 being the driver of the said vehicle and issued summons to him. Perusal of Ext. 6 reveals that the death of the deceased occurred due to hemorrhage and abdominal bleeding caused by hard and blunt substance. 12. After perusal of the evidence in record, I find that it is not in dispute that the deceased died on a motor vehicle accident caused by rash and negligent driving so the only question is whether the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689 was involved therein or not. In this respect, the testimony of C.W.3 is relevant and important. Perusal of the same reveals that he has categorically stated that he is an eye witness to the occurrence and he has described the factum of the accident as well as the involvement of the trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689. He has also stated that the opposite party-respondent no.2 was the driver of the said trekker. Though he has been cross-examined at length but nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve or discard his testimony where he has well stood his cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he has disclosed the name of the driver of the trekker to be Gokul Ram which was not mentioned in his affidavit, filed as the examination-in-chief. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit or discard his testimony. The testimony of the C.W. 3 is corroborated by the FIR and order of the learned Magistrate who after finding prima facie case ordered issue of notice. Opposite parties have not adduced any evidence. The tribunal certainly erred by finding fault with the claimants by not examining certain other eye witnesses of the occurrence. So keeping these facts in view, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said trekker bearing registration no. JH-02A-2689 resulting in death of the deceased-Suraj Kumar. So the finding of the Tribunal, so far it relates to issue nos. (i) (ii) and (iv) are reversed and these issues are answered in favour of the claimants. JH-02A-2689 resulting in death of the deceased-Suraj Kumar. So the finding of the Tribunal, so far it relates to issue nos. (i) (ii) and (iv) are reversed and these issues are answered in favour of the claimants. Since it has already been answered by the tribunal that the offending vehicle was duly insured at the relevant time of accident, by the opposite party-respondent no.3-Insurance Company, which is not under challenge, hence, the opposite party no.3/respondent no.3-Insurance Company is to pay the compensation amount. 13. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, there is absolutely no document put forth by the claimants regarding income of the deceased. There is only oral evidence that he was earning Rs.4000/- at the time of his death but C.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that he stated about the income of the deceased out of his imagination. C.Ws. 1 and 2 have stated that they do not have any documentary proof regarding the income of the deceased. So keeping in view the fact that the deceased died in the year 2003 and in the absence of any document regarding the income of the deceased, his income is assessed as Rs.3000/- per month notionally. Perusal of the Ext. 8 reveals that the date of birth of the deceased is 10.08.1984 so on the date of accident, he was aged about 19 years. Keeping in view the Multiplier to be applied, as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the multiplier applicable in this case is 18. Keeping in view the fact that the deceased was admittedly an unmarried person and in view of the ratio of Sarla Verma (SMT) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another (Supra) in para-32 wherein it has been mentioned that the 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor so the contribution to the dependents of the deceased comes out to Rs.18,000/- per annum and by using the multiplier, the total amount comes to be Rs.3,24,000/-. Further, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards cremation expenses as per the ratio in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . Further, the claimants will be entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards cremation expenses as per the ratio in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 . So the total amount of compensation for which claimants are entitled is Rs.3,54,000/-. The claimants are also allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal till realization and as already indicated above the opposite party- respondent no.3-Insurance Company is to pay the said compensation amount. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the respondent no.3-Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.3,54,000/- along with simple interest at the rate of Rs.6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization within two months from the date of this order. 15. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.