JUDGMENT 1. Appellants preferred this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition by 9th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, in MACC No.106/2012 on 1.4.2013. 2. In brief facts of the case are that on 16.5.2022 deceased Deepak aged about 25 years by his motorcycle was going to Vijaygarh. When he reached in front of S.R. College Road, respondent No.1 in the ownership of respondent No.2 insured with respondent No.3 came driving Tatapickup M.P.07 L 1711 came rash and negligently and dashed with the motorcycle, due to which, deceased Deepak in injured condition was brought to J.A. hospital. During treatment, he was declared died. Rakesh Jatav lodged a report at Police Station Maharajpura. Respondent No.1 was arrested. After investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. At the time of accident, deceased used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month by doing milk diary work. Appellant No.1 is his wife. Appellants No.2 and 3 are his daughters. Appellant No.4 and 5 are his mother and father. They were dependent on his income. Due to his death, they are hand to mouth. They are unable to maintain themselves. On their application, notices were issued. Driver and owner remained absent, therefore, exparte proceedings were drawn. 3. Respondent-Insurance Company in reply has submitted that so called offending vehicle has been falsely implicated only to get compensation. In fact, accident has not been taken place by the aforesaid offending vehicle which was insured with him. Accident took place on the rash and negligent driving by the deceased Deepak himself. Beside this, in accident contributory negligence of both the drivers is involved. Respondent No.1 was not having valid licence and respondent No.2 was having permit and witness. In these situation, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants adduced the evidence in their support. Wife of the deceased Saroj, one eye witness Moharman Singh and Ramlakhan. From the side of Insurance Company, statement of head constable Vishram Singh Yadav were placed on record. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellants-claimants failed to prove that accident took place on 16.5.2012 at 6 P.M. Deceased was taken to hospital,therefore, it became night, hence F.I.R. could not be lodged on the same day. From the side of Insurance Company, statement of head constable Vishram Singh Yadav were placed on record. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that appellants-claimants failed to prove that accident took place on 16.5.2012 at 6 P.M. Deceased was taken to hospital,therefore, it became night, hence F.I.R. could not be lodged on the same day. Next day in the morning at 8.30 AM one Rakesh Jatav, brother of the deceased lodged a F.I.R. regarding death of the deceased which took place by unknown vehicle which was driven rash and negligently. He was brought by 108 ambulance. On information, he reached hospital, where the dead body of his brother lying in mortuary. On his report, offence under section 304-A of IPC bearing Crime No.172/12 at Police Station Maharajpura, Gwalior was registered on 17.5.2012. Thereafter, during investigation of the aforesaid crime, after five days of the incident, offending vehicle was identified as Magic Tatapickup M.P.07 L 1711 and it was seized. Respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle was arrested. Statement of witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet against respondent No.1 under section 304-A of IPC was submitted before the competent Court for trial. 5. It is not disputed that offending vehicle was not insured with respondent-Insurance Company along with evidence of appellant Saroj, evidence of Moharman Singh who was eye witness of the incident as per charge-sheet was adduced. In his evidence, he has stated that on 16.5.2012 when he was going in front of S.R. College, he saw that driver of M.P.07 L 1711 dashed the motorcycle of deceased M.P.07 M.N.0922, due to which, deceased got injury. Thereafter, drive of the pickup ran away from the spot. During cross examination, he denied that he was not present on the spot. He denied that after accident took place, he reached on the spot. During cross examination, he has stated that accident was at 6 P.M. After the accident, 2-3 police personnel came. Police recorded his statement in which he has specifically stated about the incident. He denied that only to help the appellants-claimants, he is adducing the evidence in their favour. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that what best evidence appellants-claimants can produced, they have produced ocular and documentary. This is the beneficiary legislation. These type of beneficiary cases, strict proof is not required to be proved. 7. He denied that only to help the appellants-claimants, he is adducing the evidence in their favour. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that what best evidence appellants-claimants can produced, they have produced ocular and documentary. This is the beneficiary legislation. These type of beneficiary cases, strict proof is not required to be proved. 7. On the contrary, learned advocate for the Insurance Company by relying upon the evidence of Head Constable Vishram Singh Yadav that Meharman Singh and respondent-driver are of the same village, hence arguments placed that on these grounds, offending vehicle was falsely involved. During cross examination, from the appellants-claimants he did whole investigation of the crime and arrested respondent No.1, took statement of the witnesses and seized aforesaid vehicle along with documents and filed investigation report. 8. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned advocate for appellants-claimants supported by oral and documentary evidence,learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition, therefore, the appeal is to be allowed. 9. The claimants of deceased Deepak, this Court is assessed his income as Rs.6000/- per month. Thus, his annual income would be Rs.4000 x12 = Rs.48,000/-. Since the deceased was 25 years of age, claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospect. Thus, after addition of future prospect 40 % as per the law laid down in the National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC), i.e. Rs.19,200/-, total amount comes to Rs.67,200/-. As the claimant is a married, 1/4th deduction of his personal expenses i.e. Rs.16,800/-, The deceased is having dependency of his wife, daughters, father and mother. Thus, 3/4th dependency of the claimants would be (67,200-16,800) Rs.50,400/-. If multiplier of 18 is applied as per the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , Rs.50,400x18 = 9,07,200/- and the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.70,000/- under miscellaneous heads (loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses). Thus, claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.9,77,200/-. The claimants shall be entitled interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. With the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and disposed of.