JUDGMENT : This is an appeal against the Judgment & Award passed by the learned Court of Additional District Judge-IV (FTC) Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam in MAC Case No.1076/2009 dated 30.06.2014. 2. Facts of the case in brief is that the claimant had claimed compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 amounting to Rs.22,25,000/-(Rupees Twenty two lakhs twenty five thousand) only on the account of the death of her husband Dharmeswar Kalita. The claimants’ case was that on 02.04.2009, the deceased Dharmeswar Kalita was proceeding along with his colleague Dipak Saikia by driving his Alto Car from Guwahati towards Golaghat site, on the way when they reached Haldibari, Kohara on NH-37, the said Alto Car was knocked down by the offending vehicle bearing Regd. No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck). It is alleged that the offending vehicle was driven by the driver in a very rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the accident occurred. Due to the accident, the deceased Dharmeswar Kalita sustained injuries and died on the spot. The police of Bokakhat P.S. registered the case vide Bokakhat P.S. Case No.51 of 2009 under section 279/388/304(A) of Indian Penal Code and the case I/O submitted the charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle U/S 279/388/304(A) of IPC and was sent to trial. That deceased was an employee of the Fire Service Organization, Panbazar and his monthly salary was Rs.11,272/-. The deceased at the time of his death was about 47 years and was survived by his wife and 2 daughters. The appellant/opposite parties on the other hand contested the claim by denying all the claims made by the claimants in their written statement. 3. The learned Tribunal on consideration of the evidence adduced and on hearing the arguments submitted by both sides, held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regd. No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck), which caused the death of the deceased victim. The learned Tribunal also held that the accident vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company vide Policy No.1503782334002363, which was valid up to 24.10.2009. 4. No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck), which caused the death of the deceased victim. The learned Tribunal also held that the accident vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company vide Policy No.1503782334002363, which was valid up to 24.10.2009. 4. The learned Tribunal while deciding the quantum of award to be awarded, held that it was proved that the age of the deceased at the time of his death was 45 years, 5 months and 1 day and also held that as per the salary certificate that monthly income the net salary of the deceased was Rs.11,064/-and he was survived by 3(three) dependants, his wife and two minor children. The learned trial court added 30% as future prospect relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors -Vs-Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 in calculating the loss of dependency and relied on the Apex Court decision in Rajesh & Ors -Vs-Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 1403 ACJ in calculating the award under conventional head. 5. The assessment of compensation was made by the learned Tribunal as follows: Total monthly salary Rs.11,272/- Less Professional Tax Rs.208/-(minus) Total Rs.11,064/- Total Annual Salary Rs.1,32,768/-(11,064x12) Add 30% Rs.1,32,768+30% Rs.1,72,598.4 Less 1/3rd Rs.1,72,598.4/3x2 Multiplier Rs.1,15,965.6 x 13 Loss of Dependency Rs.14,95,852.80 Funeral Expenses Rs. 25,000.00 Consortium Rs. 1,00,000.00 Care and guidance for minor Rs. 1,00,000.00 Loss of estate Rs. 5,000.00 Transportation of Body of the deceased Rs. 5,000.00 Total award Rs.17,30,852.80 Rs.17,30,852.80 is round figured as Rs.17,31,000/- 6. The learned Tribunal also held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the award amount of Rs. 17,31,000/-(Rupees Seventeen lakhs thirty one thousand) only, to the claimant within a period of 90 days with an interest of 6 % per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realization. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal. 7. Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal had erred in awarding a total compensation of Rs. 17,31,000/-to be realized from the appellant Insurance company on the grounds that the accident vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) was not solely responsible for the accident. The accident had taken place due to head on collision of both the vehicles involved in the accident, the vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) and the Alto car which was driven by the deceased victim. 17,31,000/-to be realized from the appellant Insurance company on the grounds that the accident vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) was not solely responsible for the accident. The accident had taken place due to head on collision of both the vehicles involved in the accident, the vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) and the Alto car which was driven by the deceased victim. There is no proof that it was the vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) which was solely responsible, since the charge-sheet submitted had not exhibited any sketch map to prove that the accident occurred due to the sole responsibility of the vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck), therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay 50% of the award amount. There is no evidence adduce that the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck). 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the learned Tribunal had also erred in giving 30% interest against the future prospect while calculating the quantum of award since the award should cover only on the income of the deceased victim at the time of the accident. The quantum of award was calculated excessively. 9. Mr. K.K. Dutta learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that they were no grounds for interfering with the Judgment and Order of the learned Tribunal. He submits that the appellant has not adduced any evidence showing that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased victim who was driving the Alto Car. During investigation of the case by the case I/O, he had found prima facie case only against the driver of the vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) under section 279/388/304(A) of IPC which clearly proves that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of only the driver of the offending vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck). He further submits that regarding the interest added to the future prospect, there is nothing illegal when there is no bar in giving interest towards future prospect when it has been proved that the deceased was a State Government employee. 10. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -Vs- Smt. Champabati Ray & 5 Ors. in MAC.Appl. No. 378 of 2007 dated 01.10.2019 and in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 10. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. -Vs- Smt. Champabati Ray & 5 Ors. in MAC.Appl. No. 378 of 2007 dated 01.10.2019 and in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K. Lalhlimpuii and Ors. in MAC. App. No. 1 of 2020 and I.A. (Civil) No. 35 of 2020 decided on 02.12.2021 and the decision of the Apex Court in Anita Sharma & Others -Vs- New India Assurance Compnay Limited & Anr. reported in (2021) 1 SCC 171 . 11. Having heard the submissions made by both the parties, this court finds that the first point for consideration in this appeal is whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car when it collided with the offending vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) and thereby the Appellant Insurance Company was liable to pay only 50% of the award amount awarded by the learned tribunal. 12. On perusal of the evidence on record, it is seen that, on the report of the accident the case was registered at the Bokakhat P.S. Case No.51 of 2009 under section 279/388/304(A) of Indian Penal Code on 02.04.2009 itself and investigated into. The investigating officer found a prima facie case under section U/S 279/388/304(A) of IPC against the driver of the vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck), a copy of the charge sheet was duly exhibited as Exhibit-5 before the trial court by the claimant. There was no eye witness examined and the claimant has stated that the co-passenger Dipak Saikia, the colleague of her deceased husband was no longer alive. Nothing was asked during the cross examination of the claimant disputing the correctness of the findings of the Case I.O. There is no mention of any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto Car in the charge sheet. No evidence was adduced by the appellant/opposite party to support the claim that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver of the Alto car which had collided with the offending vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) on 02.04.2009. No evidence was adduced by the appellant/opposite party to support the claim that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased driver of the Alto car which had collided with the offending vehicle No.WB-23-A-8326 (Truck) on 02.04.2009. It is seen that the case I.O was not examined in the instant case, however, the Apex Court in Anita Sharma & Others (supra) held that approach to be adopted by Tribunal and Court in Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in section 166, 168 and 173 is that standard of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. Approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some of the best witnesses, as may happen in criminal trial; but instead should be only to analyse material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether claimant’s version is more likely than not true. The Apex further held that : “If the owner-cum-driver of the car was setting up a defence plea that the accident was a result of not his but the truck driver’s carelessness or rashness, then the onus was on him to step into the witness box and explain as to how the accident had taken place.” 13. In view of the above, the claim of contributory negligence at 50% without support of any convincing and cogent evidence, that too overlooking charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle under sections U/S 279/388/304(A) of IPC is found unsustainable. 14. The second point raised is whether the learned Tribunal had erred in including 30% as future prospects in computing the award. The Apex Court in Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors -Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation(supra) held that: “11. In Susamma Thomas, this Court increased the income by nearly 100%, in Sarla Dixit, the income was increased only by 50% and in Abati Bezbaruah the income was increased by a mere 7%. In view of imponderables and uncertainties, we are in favour of adopting as a rule of thumb, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below 40 years. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. [Where the annual income is in the taxable range, the words `actual salary' should be read as `actual salary less tax']. The addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. There should be no addition, where the age of deceased is more than 50 years. Though the evidence may indicate a different percentage ofincrease, it is necessary to standardize the addition to avoid different yardsticks being applied or different methods of calculations being adopted. Where the deceased was self-employed or was on a fixed salary (without provision for annual increments etc.), the courts will usually take only the actual income at the time of death. A departure therefrom should be made only in rare and exceptional cases involving special circumstances.” 15. In the instant case the pay slip of the deceased has been exhibited as Ext-4 by the complainant which was issued by the Director State Fire Service Organization, this was not rebutted by the appellants before the Tribunal. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was not self employed but was employed by the State Government. Being an employee of the State Govt. unless the pay slip specifically mentions that the pay of the employee is fixed @ of a certain amount it can be safely presumed that the deceased by having a permanent job under the State Government, the deceased is aged between 40 to 50 years and thus entitled to 30% for future prospects. In calculating the award under conventional head, the learned tribunal in the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.06.2014, has relied on the Apex Court decision in Rajesh & Ors -Vs-Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 1403 ACJ which is not specifically challenged in the pleadings in the appeal petition, therefore, does not call for interference. 16. Thus, in view of the above findings and the decisions of the Apex court in Sarla Verma (SMT) & Ors -Vs-Delhi Transport Corporation(supra) and in Anita Sharma & Others (supra), I am of the considered view that no cogent grounds have been made out for interference with the Judgment & Award passed by the learned Court of Additional District Judge-IV (FTC) Kamrup, Guwahati, Assam in MAC Case No.1076/2009 dated 30.06.2014. 17. MAC. App. No. 201 of 2018 accordingly stands dismissed and disposed. 18. LCR is to be returned. 19. 17. MAC. App. No. 201 of 2018 accordingly stands dismissed and disposed. 18. LCR is to be returned. 19. The Statutory deposit of Rs.25000/-deposited by the appellant in the registry may be allowed to be withdrawn after due verification.