Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:- CM-12494-CII-2018 in FAO-3601-2018 and CM-15212-C-II-2018 in FAO-4504-2018 Heard. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the applications, delay of 171days in filing of FAO-3601-2018 and the delay of 172 days in filing FAO-4504-2018 stand condoned. The applications stand disposed ofaccordingly. FAO-7236-2017(O&M); FAO-7237-2017(O&M); FAO-3601-2018(O&M); and FAO-4504-2018(O&M) 3. By this order, I shall dispose of four FAOs i.e. FAO-7236-2017, FAO-7237-2017 filed on behalf of insurance company and FAO-3601-2018, FAO-4504-2018 filed on behalf of the claimants, which havearisen out of the same accident. 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per version of theclaimants are that on 17.7.2015 at about 11:00 a.m., Pawanjeet andBijender had gone to village Kalenga on a motorcycle having registrationNo.HR-16M/0249; when they had reached near Kalenga turn in villageKharak Kalan, then a truck bearing registration No.HR-61A/4755(hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) came and ran over themotorcycle, resultantly both the riders namely Pawanjeet and Bijenderreceived injuries and died at the spot; formal FIR No.249 dated 18.7.2015for the offences under Sections 279/304-A IPC regarding the accident wasregistered at Police Station Sadar, Bhiwani against respondent No.1Rajpal. 5. The legal representatives of Pawanjeet, namely, his widow--Smt.Sushil Devi, aged aged about 37 years, minor sons--Parshant andVikram and mother--Smt.Chameli Devi, aged about 75 years had filed aclaim petition bearing MACT Petition No.77 of 2015 under Section 166of Motor Vehicles Act against respondents i.e. Rajpal--driver-cumowner and Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. - insurer of theoffending vehicle, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.80 lakhs alongwith interest. 6. The legal representative of Bijender, namely Om Parkashhad also brought a claim petition bearing MACT Petition No.143 of 2015under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against those veryrespondents claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.50 lakhs along withinterest. 7.Both the claim petitions were tried together since thoserelated to the same accident. 8. Notice of the claim petitions was given to respondents, whoput in appearance and filed separate written statements. 9. In the written statements filed by respondent No.1, hechallenged the locus standi of the claimants to file the claim petitionscontending that no cause of action had arisen to the claimants to file theclaim petitions; that the claim petitions were not maintainable; that theTribunal at Bhiwani did not have the jurisdiction to entertain and try theclaim petitions; that the claimants had concealed the true and materialfacts. On merits, he pleaded that no such accident had taken place with theoffending vehicle and a wrong story has been concocted by the claimantsin collusion with the police; the deceased might have suffered injuries dueto hit and run accident or due to some other reasons; that the offendingvehicle was insured with respondent No.2 insurance company and he washaving a valid and effective driving licence. Refuting the remainingallegations in the claim petitions, such respondent prayed for dismissal ofthe claim petitions. 10. In the written statements brought by respondent No.2insurance company, it has also raked up various objections alleging thatthe claim petitions had been filed by the claimants in collusion withrespondent No.1. Several other legal objections like the claim petitionsbeing bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties; theclaimants lacking locus standi etc.; claim petitions being not maintainablein the present form etc. were taken. According to such respondent,respondent No.1 was not holding a legal and valid driving licence at thetime of alleged accident and the truck was being plied in contravention ofthe terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Denying the remainingassertions, such respondent also prayed for dismissal of the claimpetitions. 11. Issues on merits were framed and the parties were affordedadequate opportunities to lead evidence. 12. After hearing arguments, the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) allowed theclaim petitions partly and compensation of Rs.21,15,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization besidescosts of the petition was awarded in claim petition bearing MACT PetitionNo.77 of 2015 to claimants Smt.Sushil Devi and others and compensationof Rs.10,43,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of thefiling of claim petition till actual realization besides costs of the petitionwas awarded in claim petition bearing MACT Petition No.143 of 2015 topetitioner Om Parkash. The manner in which the compensation is to beapportioned between the claimants of MACT Petition No.77 of 2015 isalso given in the award. 13. The claimants/petitioners in both the petitions beingdissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them and insurancecompany being dissatisfied with respect to quantum of compensationgranted in both the claim petitions have filed separate appeals before thisCourt. 14. Notices of the appeals were issued to the respectiverespondents, who put in appearance through counsel. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 14. Notices of the appeals were issued to the respectiverespondents, who put in appearance through counsel. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 16.The first and foremost argument advanced by learned counselfor the insurance company was that involvement of the offending vehiclein the accident was not there and it was rather planted by the claimants incollusion with owner-driver of the said truck and the local policeinasmuch in the FIR there is no reference to the vehicle, which had causedthe accident and name of its driver is not given and there is no reference toany eye witness of the accident, which was recorded after one day of thealleged accident and it was on asking of author of the FIR, who is brotherof the deceased that police recorded statements of witnesses after 43 daysof the accident and that witness had stated that he had heard only noise ofalleged accident resultantly running towards the spot, therefore,involvement of the truck in question was not proved and the Tribunal haswrongly allowed the claim petitions. 17. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants hasvehemently contested these contentions contending that the claimants hadbrought sufficient evidence on record to show that respondent No.1 hadcaused the accident by his rash and negligent driving and there is noquestion of the truck having been planted by the claimants in allegedcollusion with respondent No.1 and the police. 18. After hearing the rival contentions and going through therecord, I find that there is no merit in the arguments advanced by learnedcounsel for the insurance company. FIR is not a substantive piece ofevidence and its only purpose is to set the criminal machinery in motion.FIR is often lodged in hurry and it may not contain the minute and precisedetails of the incident. The FIR can be got registered by a person, whomay not be an eye-witness of the same. It is only during investigation ofthe case that police can come to know about the culprit and criminal, whohad committed the crime. It has come on record respondent No.1--Rajpalwas arrested in this case. He was sent up to face trial, though ultimatelyhe is said to have been acquitted but the acquittal of the driver does nothave much affect on the present case. It has come on record respondent No.1--Rajpalwas arrested in this case. He was sent up to face trial, though ultimatelyhe is said to have been acquitted but the acquittal of the driver does nothave much affect on the present case. The standard of proof in a criminalcase is very strict since life and liberty of a person is involved, as such theprosecution is required to prove its charge against the accused beyond ashadow 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. 19. 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 very fact that respondent No.1--Rajpal was arrested in this case and then he faced trial, in absence of anyevidence to show that he had agitated the matter with the higher policeauthorities regarding his alleged false implication in this case goes toshow that there was no such false implication. With regard to collusion,the respondent No.1 would not have arrested himself, got challanedhimself and faced trial for such a long time with imminent chances ofconviction without any rhyme or reason. In this case, even if respondentNo.1 driver has been acquitted, the prosecution/claimant has got a right tochallenge that judgment seeking conviction of the accused and thejudgment of acquittal cannot be taken to be final word on the issue. Itneeds to be mentioned here that while coming to the conclusion thatrespondent No.1--Rajpal was author of the accident by his rash andnegligent driving of the offending truck, resulting in deaths of Pawanjeetand Bijender, the Tribunal has taken into view the eye-witness account ofthe accident provided by PW3 Naresh, who had fully supported the caseof the claimants. Itneeds to be mentioned here that while coming to the conclusion thatrespondent No.1--Rajpal was author of the accident by his rash andnegligent driving of the offending truck, resulting in deaths of Pawanjeetand Bijender, the Tribunal has taken into view the eye-witness account ofthe accident provided by PW3 Naresh, who had fully supported the caseof the claimants. His statement along with testimony of PW6 ASI RanveerSingh Shekhawat, Investigating Officer, who had stated that he hadarrested respondent No.1 as accused regarding the accident finding thatRajpal had caused accident with his rash and negligent driving; further thefact that he had been challaned, charge-sheeted and facing trial in absenceof any evidence in rebuttal, finding on issue No.1 was correctly given.Respondent No.1 had not opted to appear in the witness-box to state thatthe truck driven by him was not involved in the accident or that he had notcaused the accident by his rash and negligent driving of the offendingtruck. Therefore, conclusion drawn by the Tribunal deciding issue No.1 infavour of the claimants is correct and appropriate and it does not call fortaking of any different view. 20. Learned counsel for the insurance company has referred tovarious judgments i.e. FAO-140 of 2012 titled ‘Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Munshi Singh and others’, decided on8.1.2015, FAO-55-2013 titled ‘The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Versus Kamla and others’ decided on 4.3.2016 and FAO No.483 of 2016 titled’Santosh and others Versus Inder Singh and others’, decided on28.3.2017 passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in support of hiscontention that when the FIR has been lodged against an unknown driverand unknown vehicle and driver was arrested after a considerable time,the mere fact that he has been challaned does not lead to the inference thathe had in fact caused the accident by his rash and negligent driving of hisvehicle. Those judgments do not find application to the present case dueto different facts and circumstances and the context in which suchobservations had been made. He has further contended that respondentNo.1 was not having a valid driving licence, therefore, the insurancecompany was absolved of its liability. Those judgments do not find application to the present case dueto different facts and circumstances and the context in which suchobservations had been made. He has further contended that respondentNo.1 was not having a valid driving licence, therefore, the insurancecompany was absolved of its liability. However, I find that the Tribunalwhile deciding issue No.5 has given a positive finding that respondentNo.1 was authorized to drive transport vehicle and his licence was validup to 1.4.2018 and that counsel for respondent No.2 insurance companyhad not disputed the authenticity of the driving licence during the courseof arguments and nothing had been brought on file by the insurancecompany from which it could be concluded that insured had violated theterms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, such argument isnot sustainable. 21. Now coming to the quantum part. With regard to thecompensation awarded in MACT Petition No.77 of 2015 to the legalrepresentatives of deceased Pawanjeet, his age was taken to be 42 years inview of such age entered in his postmortem report Ex.P2. Though as perversion of the claimants/deceased was doing job as STP Operator in Aquatech Jhajjar Power LT Jhalari earning a sum of Rs.20,000/- permonth but the claimants had not summoned any official from that concernto show such avocation and income of the deceased. The pay slip statedlyof deceased was not properly proved and was simply marked as Mark B.It could not possibly be taken into consideration to assess the income ofthe deceased but the Tribunal even then considered it observing thatdeceased was a technical worker and assessed his monthly income to beRs.15,000/-. The Tribunal clearly fell in error in doing so. In absence ofclear evidence with regard to avocation and income of the deceased, theTribunal had taken income of the deceased to be 15,000/-, which is onhigher side. 22. Learned counsel for the insurance company has referred tocircular issued Labour Commissioner, Haryana providing minimumwages to the workers w.e.f. 1.7.2015. In terms of this circular for a skilledworker, the wages prescribed are Rs.6,406.67, to make it round figureRs.6,407/-. 23. Therefore, I accept this figure for the purpose of assessing themonthly income of deceased Pawanjeet. The Tribunal has not added anyamount to the income of deceased towards future prospects. In terms of this circular for a skilledworker, the wages prescribed are Rs.6,406.67, to make it round figureRs.6,407/-. 23. Therefore, I accept this figure for the purpose of assessing themonthly income of deceased Pawanjeet. The Tribunal has not added anyamount to the income of deceased towards future prospects. In view of theratio of authority National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017(4) RCR(Civil)1009, when the deceased was between40 to 50 years, in such an eventuality 25% of the amount is to be addedtowards future prospects. Doing that the monthly income of the deceasedis taken as Rs.6,407 + 1601 = Rs.8,008/-. 24. In terms of the ratio of authority Smt. Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009(3)RCR(Civil)77 where the number of dependent family members are 4 to 6,deduction towards self-expenses is to be taken as 1/4th. Doing that thedependency of claimants comes out to Rs.6,006/- per month, annualdependency comes out to Rs.6,006 x 12 = Rs.72,072/-. 25. The Tribunal has used multiplier of 14, which keeping inview the age of the deceased has been properly used. Doing that thecompensation payable comes out to Rs.72,072 x 14 = 10,09,008/-. 26. The Tribunal has further granted a sum of Rs.1 lakh forconsortium for widow, Rs.1 lakh for loss of love and affection and a sumof Rs.25,000/- for the expenses incurred on the last rites. However, inview of the ratio of authority National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors.(supra), the claimants are entitled to getcompensation under conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- on account ofloss of estate, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- asfuneral expenses, total Rs.70,000/-. The total compensation comes out toRs. 10,09,008 + 70,000 = 10,79,008/-. 27. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation ofRs.21,15,000/-. The same is reduced to Rs.10,79,008/-. The claimantswould be entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filingof the claim petition till actual realization on the amount ofRs.10,79,008/-. Other terms and conditions regarding apportionment inthe original award shall remain the same. 28. Now coming to the compensation awarded to the claimantOm Parkash in MACT Petition No.143 of 2015. The Tribunal took theage of deceased Bijender to be 30 years keeping in view the age entered inthe postmortem report and his monthly income was assessed to beRs.9,000/- as skilled worker rejecting the case of the claimant that he wasearning Rs.15,000/- per month by working in a sweet shop. The Tribunal took theage of deceased Bijender to be 30 years keeping in view the age entered inthe postmortem report and his monthly income was assessed to beRs.9,000/- as skilled worker rejecting the case of the claimant that he wasearning Rs.15,000/- per month by working in a sweet shop. 29. In view of the abovesaid circular, I assess the income of thedeceased Bijender to be Rs.6,407/- per month. 30. The Tribunal has not added any amount to the income ofdeceased towards future prospects. In view of the ratio of authorityNational Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors., 2017(4) RCR(Civil)1009, when the deceased was below the age of 40years, in such an eventuality 40% of the amount is to be added towardsfuture prospects. Doing that the monthly income of the deceased is takenas Rs.6,407 + 2,562 = Rs.8,969/-. 31. In terms of the ratio of authority Smt.Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr., 2009(3)RCR(Civil)77 where the deceased is unmarried, deduction towards self-expenses is to be taken as 1/2. Doing that the dependency of claimantcomes out to Rs.4,484/- per month, annual dependency comes out toRs.4,484 x 12 = Rs.53,808/-/-. 32. The Tribunal has used multiplier of 17, which keeping inview the age of the deceased has been properly used. Doing that thecompensation payable comes out to Rs.53,808 x 17 = 9,14,736/-. 33. The Tribunal has further granted a sum of Rs.1 lakh for lossof love and affection and also for loss of care and guidance to minorchildren and a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the expenses incurred on the lastrites. However, in view of the ratio of authority National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi and Ors.(supra), the claimant isentitled to get compensation under conventional heads i.e. Rs.15,000/- onaccount of loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, totalRs.30,000/-. The total compensation comes out to Rs. 9,14,736 + 30,000 =9,44,736/-. 34. The Tribunal has wrongly awarded compensation ofRs.10,43,000/-. The same is reduced to Rs.9,44,736/-. The claimant wouldbe entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of theclaim petition till actual realization on the amount of Rs.9,44,736/-.Other terms and conditions regarding apportionment in the original awardshall remain the same. 35. With such modifications, FAO-7236-2017 and FAO-7237-2017 filed on behalf of Insurance Company are allowed partly with costs. 36. The claimant wouldbe entitled to get interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of theclaim petition till actual realization on the amount of Rs.9,44,736/-.Other terms and conditions regarding apportionment in the original awardshall remain the same. 35. With such modifications, FAO-7236-2017 and FAO-7237-2017 filed on behalf of Insurance Company are allowed partly with costs. 36. If the amount of compensation has already been paid by theInsurance company, it shall be entitled to recover the difference in amountfrom the claimants as per law by way of filing an execution applicationbefore the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani. 37. There is absolutely no reason to enhance the amount ofcompensation rather it has been reduced in both the cases. 38. Consequently, FAO-3601-2018 and FAO-4504-2018 filed onbehalf of the appellants/claimants stand dismissed with costs.