JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. This is an appeal directed against the Judgment and Award dated 12.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 66/2015. Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited and Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 1. 2. Facts in brief: On 24.02.2015 at around 9.20 pm, late Lalmalsawma, who was the son of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, husband and father of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, respectively was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. MZ 01-J-6839 with a pillion rider, namely, late Lalrinawma. While riding the motor cycle at Vairengte, near Kawngthar Veng, they tried to overtake a Truck bearing Registration No. MZ-01-B- 9742, which was moving towards Aizawl, and all of a sudden, they fell down and the Truck ran over both of them and as a result, the pillion rider late Lalrinawma died at the spot and late Lalmalsawma died in the Hospital. 3. Since the deceased Lalmalsawma, who was a Muster Roll worker under the Department of Power & Electricity, Government of Mizoram was the only bread earner of the family, the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl making the present appellant as one of the respondents since the offending vehicle i.e. the Truck bearing Registration No. MZ-01-B- 9742 was insured under Policy No. 53060031140200002543 with validity from 05.07.2014 to 04.07.2015. The respondents who were claimants before the learned Tribunal produced and examined four witnesses, but neither the appellant in this case nor the other respondents examined any witness in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties through their learned counsel and after appreciating the evidence given by the respondents/claimants, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment dated 12.06.2017 and awarded a sum of Rs. 23,72,500/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 19.05.2015. The operative portion of the Judgment and Award dated 12.06.2017 is reproduced herein below:- "15. As such the compensation is as follows:- 1. Annual income Rs. 7500x12 = 90000 2. Addition of 50% of future prospect Rs. 23,72,500/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 19.05.2015. The operative portion of the Judgment and Award dated 12.06.2017 is reproduced herein below:- "15. As such the compensation is as follows:- 1. Annual income Rs. 7500x12 = 90000 2. Addition of 50% of future prospect Rs. 90000 x 50 = 45000 100 3. Loss of income 90000 + 45000 x 18 x3 = 18,22,500 4 4. Loss of love and affection for parents Rs. 1,00,000 5. Loss of love & affection for one minor children of the deceased. Rs.1,00,000 6. Loss of consortium for wife Rs.1,00,000 7. Funeral Expenses Rs.50,000 8. Loss of Estate Rs.1,00,000 9. Loss of expectation of life Rs.1,00,000 Total compensation Award Rs.23,72,500/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs seventy two thousand five hundred) only. 16. As such the O.P No. 2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is directed to deposit Rs. 23,72,500/- (Rupees twenty three lakhs seventy two thousand five hundred) only along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of filing i.e., 19.05.2015 within one month from the date of Judgment to this Tribual in form of account payee cheque or in cash or demand draft in favour of the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for onward disbursement to the Claimant. 17. The case is disposed accordingly." 5. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award, the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the same on three grounds. They are- (i) That no negligence was proved against the driver of the offending Truck (ii) That the monthly income of the deceased which was fixed @ Rs. 7500/- by the learned Tribunal is without any basis and (iii) That the compensation given under the following heads:- 6. Loss of consortium for wife - Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses - Rs.50,000/- 8. Loss of Estate - Rs.1,00,000/- are excessive and not as per judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. and in 22 other Special Leave Petitions. 6. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that for the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is incumbent upon the claimants to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent while driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. and in 22 other Special Leave Petitions. 6. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that for the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is incumbent upon the claimants to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent while driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. However, in this case, the claimants failed to discharge the burden cast on them by law, therefore, the learned Tribunal erred both in facts and law while granting the award. The learned counsel referred to the inquiry report and the statements of the two Police Officers involved in the preparation of the police inquiry report and investigation of the case in order to demonstrate that the accident happened due to the negligent riding of the motor cycle by the deceased and not due to the negligence of the driver of the offending Truck. The learned counsel submitted that the police report is authored by a person who was not present at the spot of the accident, therefore, the same could not have been relied upon. Further, the learned counsel also submitted that in the police report itself, it is stated that while the motor bike was trying to overtake the Truck, it accidentally slipped down on the road beside the Truck and as a result, the riders were run over by the running Truck. This shows that the accident did not happen due to any negligence on the part of the Truck driver. 7. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no whisper of evidence which would show that the Truck came into contact with the Bike at any point of time, therefore, this shows that the accident did not happen due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck driver. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that the Truck was fully loaded and was going towards Aizawl, therefore, running uphill, and moreover the accident took place where the road is curving, as such, it can safely be assumed that it was not running at a high speed. In such circumstances, question of rash and negligent driving does not arise at all. 8. In such circumstances, question of rash and negligent driving does not arise at all. 8. The learned counsel also submitted that as per eye witness account at the time of accident, the Truck was at the left side of the road leaving a big enough space for a car to pass by, therefore, the riders of the motor cycle could have easily pass by but the fact that the accident occurred under such circumstances only shows that it happened only due to the negligence of the motor cycle riders and not due to the rash and negligent driving of the Truck driver. 9. Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel by referring to the statement of the Investigating Officer who opined that if he were to take over a vehicle, he would do so at a place where the road is straight and not where there is a turning submitted that the motor cycle riders should have done as stated by the Investigating Officer. But by trying to take over at a turning has led to the accident. This also shows that they were the ones who were negligent. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to two paragraphs of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla & Ors. reported in 2007(13) SCC 476 by laying emphasis specially on the sentence underlined. The relevant paragraphs referred to and the contents thereof are extracted here below:- "9. Where an accident occurs owing to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle, resulting in sufferance of injury or death by any third party, the driver would be liable to pay compensation therefor. Owner of the vehicle in terms of the Act also becomes liable under the 1988 Act. In the event vehicle is insured, which in the case of a third party, having regard to sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the Act, is mandatory in character, the Insurance Company would statutorily be enjoined to indemnify the owner. 10. The insurer, however, would be liable to reimburse the insured to the extent of the damages payable by the owner to the claimants subject of course to the limit of its liability as laid down in the Act or the contract of insurance. Proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore. 10. The insurer, however, would be liable to reimburse the insured to the extent of the damages payable by the owner to the claimants subject of course to the limit of its liability as laid down in the Act or the contract of insurance. Proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore. sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act." 10. The learned counsel also cited paragraph 10 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lachoo Ram & Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation reported in (2014) 13 SCC 254 . The words particularly referred to by the learned counsel are extracted here below:- "10. But simply the involvement of the bus in the accident cannot make the respondent liable to pay compensation unless it can be held on the basis of materials on record that the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver, Respondent 2 ................." 11. On his second ground of contention, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in Mizoram, a Muster Roll worker was earning only Rs. 250/- per day and he does not work on Saturdays and Sundays. Therefore, if 8 days i.e. Saturdays and Sundays are deducted, there are only 23 working days in a month. Hence, Muster Roll who are paid on daily basis could not have earned Rs. 7500/- but Rs. 5750/- only at the most. Thus, the learned Tribunal has committed error by calculating the compensation with Rs. 7500/- as monthly income of the deceased. 12. On the third ground of the appeal, the learned counsel submitted that after the passing of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. and in 22 other Special Leave Petitions, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the following heads:- 6. Loss of consortium for wife - Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses - Rs.50,000/- 8. Loss of Estate - Rs.1,00,000/- are excessive therefore, they need to be reduced as per the said judgment. 13. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. Loss of consortium for wife - Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses - Rs.50,000/- 8. Loss of Estate - Rs.1,00,000/- are excessive therefore, they need to be reduced as per the said judgment. 13. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 submitted that the fact that the Truck was running uphill and the accident took place at a spot where the road was curving shows that it was not moving at a high speed. Therefore, if the Truck driver was not negligent, he could have stopped the Truck and avoided running over on the two deceased. The learned counsel also submitted that the statement of the Investigating Officer that the remaining space of the road beside the space occupied by the Truck would be sufficient for a car to pass by was relating to the time when Truck was parked and not when it was moving. Therefore, one can safely conclude that driver of the Truck had not given sufficient space for the two deceased to take over. Had enough space been given, the accident would not have occurred. 14. The learned counsel also submitted that the monthly income of the deceased late Lalmalsawma as determined by the learned Tribunal was based on the Income Certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Vairengte Power Sub-Division. It was neither objected nor refuted at the time it was produced and exhibited before the learned Tribunal, therefore, the evidential value of the same cannot be challenged at this stage. 15. The learned counsel further submitted that the Muster Roll workers especially in Power & Electricity Department are called for emergency duties anytime, therefore, it cannot be concluded that their services are not used on Saturdays and Sundays. The learned counsel in support of his submission cited paragraph 2 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New Datar Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Radhabai (Smt) & Ors. reported in (1996) 10 SCC 442 . The same is reproduced herein below:- "2. The only question is whether PW 5 was negligent in driving the je(sic)P due to which the collision had occurred? (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Radhabai (Smt) & Ors. reported in (1996) 10 SCC 442 . The same is reproduced herein below:- "2. The only question is whether PW 5 was negligent in driving the je(sic)P due to which the collision had occurred? The High Court had carefully scanned the evidence of PW 5 and held thus: We do not think, however, why the statement of Patki that Jeep car had not come to a standstill but was proceeding in slow motion at the time of the accident could not be accepted. Patki was asked in cross-examination as to why he did not take his jeep car either to the right or further to the left when there was possibility of impact with the bus. Patki has replied that he did not take the car to the right side of the road because thereby he would be going on the wrong side of the road and he could not take the car further to the left as there was a ditch on the left side of the road and the front wheels of the jeep car were likely to get into it. Possibly, these questions which were asked by the defendants indicate that Patki might have avoided the impact by taking the car further to the left or to the right. We are unable to appreciate that Patki could be considered to be wanting in taking necessary care because he could neither take the car to the right nor further to the left. The reason given by Shri Patki for continuing to drive the car on the kutcha road are adequate to show that he could not have deviated from the direction and the side without further risk. We are unable to appreciate how Patki could have taken his car towards the right. It was the duty of the driver of the passenger bus to take the bus on the proper side of the road, i.e., towards his left. If the driver of the bus did not or could not do so, the fault cannot be laid at the door of the driver of the jeep car, in the circumstances as he was at the relevant time, when he was already on the extreme left on the road i.e. the correct side when proceeding from Martizapur to Karanja. If the driver of the bus did not or could not do so, the fault cannot be laid at the door of the driver of the jeep car, in the circumstances as he was at the relevant time, when he was already on the extreme left on the road i.e. the correct side when proceeding from Martizapur to Karanja. The testimony of this witness, which we have carefully scanned, does not deserve the harsh criticism of the learned judge that Patki has no regard for truth. It is true that Patki has made a statement earlier that his car had come to a stop. From that single statement it is difficult to hold that whole of the testimony of this witness is liable to be rejected, as evidence of a witness which is not trustworthy. The learned Judge also seems to have failed to take into consideration that part of the evidence of Patki where he speaks about the wheels of the bus as far as he could notice." 16. I have perused the Lower Court Record and I have also considered the submissions of the learned counsels representing the parties in this case. 17. After having considered the submissions of both the learned counsels representing the parties and also the contents of the evidence both oral and documentary, this Court has come to the following conclusions:- The submission of the learned counsel of the appellant that no negligence was proved against the driver of the offending Truck, therefore, the respondents/claimants are not entitled to any compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 appears to be based on the assumption that there should be watertight evidence to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In a case under Motor Vehicles Act where compensation is concerned, the strict principles of evidence as in criminal case need not be complied with. Suffice it would be if there is preponderance of probabilities, from the evidence given by the witnesses of the respondents/claimants. It appears that there were no eye witnesses when the accident took place. Therefore, one has to rely on the evidence given by the two Police Officers, one who investigated the case and the other who submitted the police report. Suffice it would be if there is preponderance of probabilities, from the evidence given by the witnesses of the respondents/claimants. It appears that there were no eye witnesses when the accident took place. Therefore, one has to rely on the evidence given by the two Police Officers, one who investigated the case and the other who submitted the police report. The Investigating Officer i.e. S.I. Lalramnghaka stated that after visiting the place of occurrence and on careful examination, he found that the cause of accident was due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver of the same. He also gave his opinion that had the Truck driver slowed down after giving the signal to the two deceased to overtake and had he driven the Truck carefully and not negligently, the accident would not have occurred. This opinion of the Investigating Officer was given after having investigated the place of occurrence properly. And he is not interested person in our case. This opinion of the I.O formed on the basis of his investigation is not improbable considering the fact that the accident occurred when the Truck could not have been driven at high speed due to the uphill climb and curving of the road and the same would have been true of the bike in the sense that the deceased could not have driven so fast at that point of time because of the same reason. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the said accident could have been avoided had the Truck driver been not negligent or had taken a little care. 18. The second Police Officer i.e. S.I Lalrinhlua, who prepared the police report regarding the accident also stated that he visited the place of occurrence on the next day of the accident and according to his observation, the Truck driver had negligently driven his vehicle after allowing the bike to overtake and he also did not provide sufficient space for the takeover. The Police Officer also stated that at the place of occurrence, he did not find any indication of application of break of the offending Truck. Further, the Police Officer also stated that investigating officer revealed that the accident was due to negligent driving on the part of the Truck driver and not due to any fault on the part of the bike rider. Further, the Police Officer also stated that investigating officer revealed that the accident was due to negligent driving on the part of the Truck driver and not due to any fault on the part of the bike rider. On considering the evidence given by the two Police Officers, one can conclude that their statements are based on their findings arrived at after they have investigated properly about the occurrence of the accident. Their statements were not discredited or refuted in any manner by the appellant while cross examining them. Moreover, no witness was examined by the appellant to show that the accident did not happen due to the negligence of the offending Truck driver or the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased bike driver. As stated already, in motor accident claims cases, it is sufficient if preponderance of probabilities is proved. In this case, the evidence given by the two Police Officers as stated above has shown sufficient preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the first ground of appeal is rejected. 19. The contentions of the appellant that the monthly income of the deceased late Lalmalsawma could have only been at best Rs. 5750/- and not Rs. 7500/- is not acceptable, because an income certificate which was issued by an Officer under whom the deceased worked as Muster Roll was exhibited and the exhibit shows that the income of the deceased late Lalmalsawma was Rs. 7500/-. The Income Certificate exhibited before the learned Tribunal is reproduced here below:- "To Whom it may Concern This is to certify that Pu. Lalmalsawma (L) S/o Sangzawna, Electric Veng, Aizawl has drawn salary Rs. 7,500.00 (Rupees seven thousand five hundred) only per month. He has been engaged as casual labour under Vairengte Power Sub-Division, Vairengte. (Lalnunsanga) Sub-Divisional Officer, Vairengte Power Sub-Division, Vairengte: Mizoram" When an Income Certificate is issued by an Officer of Power & Electricity Department, that too, by the one who was responsible for distribution of monthly salary, I find no reason to doubt on the veracity or the genuineness or truthfulness of the certificate. Therefore, the second ground of appeal is also rejected. Therefore, the second ground of appeal is also rejected. Now coming to the third ground of appeal, since the accident occurred in 2015 before the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant was passed, this Court is of the view that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case will not apply in this case. Moreover, I find the compensation given by the learned counsel under the following heads i.e.;- 6. Loss of consortium for wife - Rs.1,00,000/- 7. Funeral Expenses - Rs.50,000/- 8. Loss of Estate - Rs.1,00,000/- are not excessive but reasonable compensation at that relevant time. In view of the above discussions and conclusions, the appeal is rejected. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. No cost.