Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 20.2.2014,Sube Singh along with his relative Bhim Singh had started their journeyfor Gurgaon on their separate motorcycles; Sube Singh was drivingmotorcycle having registration No.HR26-AD/9035 and he had started hisjourney about 20-25 minutes prior to Bhim Singh; Bhim Singh hadstopped at petrol pump for getting fuel and when he reached in front ofPolytechnic College, Manesar while driving his motorcycle bearingregistration No.HR26R/0360, he saw several people assembled on theroad; Bhim Singh stopped his motorcycle and saw that Sube Singh havingsuffered injuries was lying on the road along with his motorcycle; SubeSingh was taken to General Hospital, Gurgaon by arranging a privatevehicle but he was declared brought dead there; Bhim Singh had lodgedreport regarding the accident to the police of Police Station Manesar andformal FIR No.62 dated 20.2.2014 for the offences under Sections 279,304-A and 427 IPC was registered against unknown person and unknownvehicle; subsequently during the course of investigation, it transpired thatthe mishap had been caused due to rash and negligent driving of Innovacar bearing registration No.DL3 CAJ 6036 (hereinafter referred to as theoffending car) by Sandeep Kumar--respondent No.1. 2. Smt.Sunita, aged about 38 years--widow, Ms.Priyanka agedabout 20 years--daughter, Ms.Archna, aged about 13 years--minordaughter and Master Manjeet aged about 6 years--minor son of SubeSingh had brought claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against respondents i.e. Sandeep Kumar--driver, DharambirYadav--owner and Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Ltd. -insurer of the offending car, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.30lakhs with interest and cost. 3. As per the version of the claimants at the time of his death,deceased Sube Singh was aged about 44 years and he was employed as asecurity guard with M/s BS Enterprises, Kapriwas, Dharuhera and gettingmonthly salary of Rs.8,000/- from that employment; in addition to thatavocation, he was doing work of cattle rearing and allied activities fromwhere he managed to earn additional sum of Rs.20,000/- per month, inthat way, his total income was Rs.28,000/- per month and the claimantswere dependent upon his earnings. 4. On being put to notice, all the three respondents had appearedand filed written statements. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a jointwritten statement, whereas respondent No.3 came up with a separatewritten statement. 5. 4. On being put to notice, all the three respondents had appearedand filed written statements. Respondents No.1 and 2 had filed a jointwritten statement, whereas respondent No.3 came up with a separatewritten statement. 5. In the joint written statement filed by the former, they hadraised various preliminary objections challenging the maintainability ofthe claim petition contending that no accident had been caused by theInnova car bearing registration No.DL 3 CAJ 6036 and a wrong FIR wasgot registered by the claimants in collusion with the police. However, thesaid vehicle was insured with respondent No.3--insurance company andif the Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimants were entitled to anycompensation, then insurance company would be liable to pay the same.Denying the remaining allegations, such respondents prayed for dismissalof the claim petition. 6. In the written statement submitted by respondent No.3--insurance company, it had also denied the involvement of the Innova carin question driven by respondent No.1 in the accident, however,submitting that on the day of the accident, respondent No.1 was nothaving a valid, effective and appropriate licence and that owner and driverof the vehicle had not informed the answering respondent about thealleged accident; that there were violations of the terms and conditions ofthe insurance policy, as such the answering respondent was not liable todischarge the liability to indemnify the insured of the payment ofcompensation. Such respondent had taken up statutory defences availableto it while craving for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Issues on merits were framed. The parties were affordedadequate opportunities to lead evidence. 8. After hearing arguments, the Tribunal while allowing thepetition partly vide award dated 18.4.2015, awarded compensation ofRs.50,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing ofthe petition till the date of realization to the claimants. The liability of therespondents to pay this amount was held to be joint and several. 9. Feeling that the compensation awarded to them was on lowerside, the claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement ofcompensation, notice of which was given to respondents. Initiallyrespondents No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel but subsequently theydid not appear in the Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 11. It may be mentioned here that the Tribunal has observed thatclaimants have failed to prove that respondent No.1 was negligent incausing the accident. Initiallyrespondents No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel but subsequently theydid not appear in the Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 11. It may be mentioned here that the Tribunal has observed thatclaimants have failed to prove that respondent No.1 was negligent incausing the accident. Therefore, issue No.1 was decided against them.However, such verdict given by the Tribunal is erroneous and is a resultof misappraisal of evidence and wrong interpretation of law. Theclaimants had led sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence to showthat the offending car had caused the accident, in which Sube Singh hadlost his life and that the accident had taken place on account of rash andnegligent driving of the said car by Sandeep Kumar--respondent No.1.The oral evidence adduced included examining of Bhim Singh(PW2),who had lodged the FIR with regard to the accident, though he did notclaim that he had seen the accident himself but from his testimony, it cancertainly be taken that Sube Singh had died in a road side accident. Thecrucial witness, who provided the eye-witness account was PW3 Jagdish.He had stated that on the fateful day, he along with Rajender Singh wasgoing towards Gurgaon from Pachgaon and an Innova car of silver colourwas going ahead of them and when they had reached in front ofPolytechnic College, Manesar then driver of Innova car struck against themotorcyclist, who was going ahead of him and that the Innova car wasbeing driven in a rash and negligent manner and on account of the suddenimpact, the motorcyclist fell down and received injuries; the driver of theInnova car stopped his vehicle for a while and then fled away towardsGurgaon. According to this witness, he followed him and noted down theregistration number of the Innova car as DL3 CAJ 6036. He was subjectedto cross-examination in which he stated that he did not know the deceasedpersonally and he stopped at the spot only for 3 to 5 minutes. TheTribunal has disbelieved him for the reason that he had stated that he didnot know the deceased personally and he had not shifted him to thehospital. That was hardly a reason to discard the testimony of suchwitness. Nothing had come on record to show that he is favourablyinclined towards the claimants and animosity towards the respondents,which might have prompted him to come and depose falsely in favour ofthe claimants and against the respondents. That was hardly a reason to discard the testimony of suchwitness. Nothing had come on record to show that he is favourablyinclined towards the claimants and animosity towards the respondents,which might have prompted him to come and depose falsely in favour ofthe claimants and against the respondents. One more thing to be noted isthat a police personnel was present at the spot when he reached there. TheTribunal has drawn a conclusion that police was already there, meaningthereby, that the accident had already taken place before PW3 Jagdish hadreached the spot and there was no occasion for him to chase the saidInnova car. One more reason for disbelieving him was that if he had noteddown the registration number of the offending vehicle on the spot, thenthere was no reason for him not to disclose the same to the police or toBhim Singh. The findings of the Tribunal on issue No.1 are obviouslyerroneous based upon wrong interpretation of law and misappraisal ofevidence. 12. Learned Tribunal proceeded to decide the aforesaid issue as ifit was dealing with a criminal case and not a petition for compensationunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The standard of proof in acriminal case is very strict since life and liberty of a person is involved, assuch the prosecution is required to prove its charge against the accusedbeyond a shadow of reasonable doubt and as per principles of criminaljurisprudence prevalent in our country, hundreds of guilty persons may goscot-free but even one innocent should not be punished. While dealingwith cases of civil nature, the yardstick to be used is preponderance ofprobabilities. 13. Furthermore, Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is apiece of welfare legislation. It was enacted to provide promptcompensation to persons, who sustained injury or owner of the propertydamaged or to legal representatives of person, who got killed in a roadside accident. Hyper technical approach is not to be adopted whileadjudicating such type of petitions. The Tribunal in this case hasobviously done so, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 14. It was enacted to provide promptcompensation to persons, who sustained injury or owner of the propertydamaged or to legal representatives of person, who got killed in a roadside accident. Hyper technical approach is not to be adopted whileadjudicating such type of petitions. The Tribunal in this case hasobviously done so, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 14. If we see the testimony of this witness in conjunction with thefact that respondent No.1 had not stepped into the witness-box to deposeon oath that he was not author of the accident by rash and negligentdriving of the offending vehicle and further respondent No.2 had alsoopted not to get his statement recorded to state on oath that the Innova Carbelonging to him was not involved in the accident and further thatrespondent No.1 had been arrested in this case and forwarded to face trialin causing the accident as is evident from final report under Section 173Cr.P.C. along with other documents Ex.P5 to Ex.P16. The naturalinference to be drawn is that the version of the claimants is correct.Therefore, verdict given by the Tribunal on issue No.1 is not sustainableand the same is set aside holding that Sube Singh had died in a motorvehicular accident, which took place due to rash and negligent driving ofthe offending vehicle No.DL3 CAJ 6036 by respondent No.1--SandeepKumar as per version of the claimants. The Tribunal has wrongly come tothe conclusion that it was a hit and run case and accident had not takenplace in presence of PW3 Jagdish. The Tribunal has given too muchimportance to the fact that the name of culprit and registration number ofthe offending vehicle are not mentioned in the FIR. But then FIR is not asubstantive piece of evidence and its only purpose is to set the criminalmachinery in motion. FIR is often lodged in hurry and it may not containthe minute and precise details of the incident. The FIR can be gotregistered by a person, who may not be an eye-witness of the same. It isonly during investigation of the case that police can come to know aboutthe culprit and criminal, who had committed the crime. 15. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties, theTribunal has decided issue No.3 against the respondent No.3--insurancecompany observing that on the day of accident respondent No.1 washolding a valid and effective driving licence. It isonly during investigation of the case that police can come to know aboutthe culprit and criminal, who had committed the crime. 15. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the parties, theTribunal has decided issue No.3 against the respondent No.3--insurancecompany observing that on the day of accident respondent No.1 washolding a valid and effective driving licence. The verdict so given isproper and appropriate and does not call for any interference. 16. As regards the findings given on issue No.2 relating toquantum of compensation, the claimant No.1--Smt.Sunita Devi--widowof deceased appearing as PW1 had stated that her husband was aged about43 years; he was having good physique and was employed as securityguard with M/s B.S. Enterprises, Kapriwas, Dharuhera and drawingRs.8,000/- per month as salary and in addition to that he was earningRs.20,000/- by doing work of cattle rearing and allied activities, thus histotal income was Rs.28,000/- per month. She had admitted that she wasnot in possession of any record to substantiate these assertions.Nevertheless, the claimants had examined Surender Singh, SeniorExecutive (HR & Administration) Care of Shiv Engineering Industriesvillage Kapriwas, who had deposed that deceased was regular employeeof their concern under the contractor M/s B.S. Enterprises and Consultant,which provide them manpower; he used to get Rs.6,000/- per month andhis ESI number was 6912964643 and GPF number was RJ/15782/81. Hehad proved the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.P3. 17. The Tribunal has disbelieved the testimony of this witness bygiving unconvincing reasons and granted compensation of Rs.50,000/-only in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal wasnot justified in doing so. However, I find that the deposition of thiswitness is believable and doing that monthly income of the deceased cansafely be taken to Rs.6,000/- from his employment with M/s B.S.Enterprises and Consultant as a security guard. 18. In view of the ratio of authority National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors.,  2017(4)RCR(Civil)1009, keeping in view the age of deceased, 25% of the amountis to be added towards future prospects. Doing that the monthly income ofthe deceased is taken as Rs.6000 + 1500 = Rs.7,500/-. 19. In terms of the ratio of authority Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.,  2009(3)RCR(Civil)77 deduction of 1/4 should be made towards self expenses.Doing that the dependency of claimants comes out to Rs.5,625/- permonth, annual dependency comes out to Rs.5,625 x 12 = Rs.67,500/-. 20. 19. In terms of the ratio of authority Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.,  2009(3)RCR(Civil)77 deduction of 1/4 should be made towards self expenses.Doing that the dependency of claimants comes out to Rs.5,625/- permonth, annual dependency comes out to Rs.5,625 x 12 = Rs.67,500/-. 20. Applying multiplier of 14 in view of authority Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr.(supra)the compensation payable comes out to Rs.67,500 x 14 = 9,45,000/-. 21. In view of the ratio of authority National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors.(supra), the claimantsare entitled to get compensation under conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/-on account of loss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium andRs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, total Rs.70,000/-. 22. Thus, the total compensation comes out to Rs.10,15,000/-(945000 + 70000). 23. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 24. In this way, the enhanced amount comes out to Rs.9,65,000/-(10,15,000 - 50,000). The claimants would be entitled to get interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till actual realizationon the enhanced amount of Rs.9,65,000/-. The other terms and conditionsgiven in the relief clause shall apply to the enhanced amount as well. 25. With such modification, the appeal is allowed partly.