JUDGMENT Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. This is an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "Insurance Company")/appellant under section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") challenging the judgment and award dated 06.08.2016 made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnore in M.A.C.T. Case No. 88 of 2023 (Smt. Seema Devi and others v. Shehnawaz Chaudhary and others). 2. Facts, leading to present appeal, are that one Rakesh Kumar who was employed as Police Constable in U.P. Police was returning home after his duty on 13.06.2012, when he was hit by an offending bus (U.P. 15 AT 9224) resulting into his severe injuries. He was admitted in Noorpur Hospital, where his condition deteriorated and was referred to District Hospital, Bijnore. He was, thereafter, taken to District Government Hospital, Agra for treatment and unfortunately died on 29.08.2012. At the time of his death, he was 36 years of age and was getting a salary of approximately Rs. 22,000/- per month. The deceased was survived by his widow, Seema Devi and his two daughters Khushi, 7 years of age and Gungun, 5 years of age, and widowed mother. 3. A claim petition was filed at Bijnore seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,15,19,000/- along with interest. The claim petition was contested by owner of the vehicle and driver as well as the Insurance Company who filed their written statement denying of any accident having been taken place. The trial court on 19.07.2013 framed the following five issues:- ^^1&Dk fnukad 13&06&2012 dks le; 5 cts 'kke LFkku fcutkSj&uwjiqj jksM vUrxZr Fkkuk uwjiqj esa cl la[;k ;wih0 15 ,0Vh0&9224 ds pkyd }kjk cl dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, jkds'k dqekj dh eksVjlkbZfdy esa VDdj ekj nh] ftles vkbZ xEHkhj pksVks ds dkj.k jkds'k dqekj dh e`R;q gks xbZ\ 2& D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk Lo;a e`rd dh ;ksxnkbZ mis{kk dk ifj.kke gS] ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ 3& D;k nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ,oa le; dfFkr cl la[;k ;wih0&15 ,0Vh0&9224 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh M~kbfoax ykbZlsUl Fkk\ 4& D;k nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ,oa le; dfFkr cl ;wih0&15 ,0Vh0&9224 foi{kh la[;k 2 chek dEiuh }kjk chfer Fkh\ 5& D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdj jkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ;fn gkWa rks fdruh vkSj fdlls\** 4. The claimant filed various documentary evidences and she appeared before the Tribunal as PW-1 while the witnesses Mahesh and Aadil Sarjil appeared as PW-2 and PW-3. While no one was deposed before the court below on behalf of defendants. 5. The trial court while deciding issue no. 1 and 2 together found that accident was caused by offending bus on 13.06.2012 due to which Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries and ultimately died. While deciding issue no. 5, the court below awarded the compensation at Rs. 36,58,560/- along with 7% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Against the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. 6. On 01.12.2016, appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount. Against the said order, the appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 5727 of 2021. In the meantime, Insurance Company deposited the entire amount before the Tribunal on 02.08.2017, amounting to Rs. 45,75,254/-. The order of this Court was stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 04.10.2017. On 16.09.2021, the appeal preferred by Insurance Company was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal on merits. 7. Sri. Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that G.D. Entry No. 54 reflects that deceased was found in unconscious stage without any reference of any motor vehicle accident. According to him, the accident is dated 13.06.2012 while Rakesh Kumar died on 29.08.2012 but letter from hospital reflect that accident took place with unknown vehicle. He further submitted that letter to D.M. for post mortem written by brother of deceased also reflects that deceased died with an unknown vehicle. Panchnama also does not reflect the number of offending vehicle. 8. According to him, the claimant in her cross-examination had admitted that she gathered information regarding the vehicle on 14.09.2012 but still the First Information Report was lodged after three months from the date of knowledge and about six months from the date of accident. 9. He further stressed that PW-2 who is an alleged eye-witness had stated in his examination-in-chief that he came on request of claimant. According to him, if he was an eye-witness then why he did not disclose the details to the Police. According to him, the testimony of the alleged eye-witness cannot be believed. 9. He further stressed that PW-2 who is an alleged eye-witness had stated in his examination-in-chief that he came on request of claimant. According to him, if he was an eye-witness then why he did not disclose the details to the Police. According to him, the testimony of the alleged eye-witness cannot be believed. He then contended that the owner of the vehicle had denied the accident. 10. He lastly contended that the Tribunal had wrongly awarded interest on future prospect as the interest cannot be awarded for something which is due in future. According to him, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 was primarily answering a reference on an issue whether future prospect can be awarded in cases where the deceased was self employed or on a fix salary. The question of interest on future prospect was neither raised or argued, nor answered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 11. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of Bombay High Court in First Appeal No. 1579 of 2006, Smt. Kalpana Madhu Gavali and others v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, decided on 21.09.2023, and judgment of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mst. Aisha Bano & others, decided on 14.07.2023. 12. Sri. Rakesh Kumar Porwal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submitted that appellant had not produced any oral testimony, and the owner and driver of the vehicle were never produced before the court as defence witness, thus, the averment made in the written statement cannot be proved. According to him, the appellant who was the defendant before the court below had the reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, but it failed to produce the defence witness in support of its claim. 13. According to him, the appellant cannot raise this ground in appeal, as the strict principle of proving in a criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for compensation under the Act of 1988, and further the standard to be followed in such claim is one of preponderance of probability rather than one of proving beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the Act to preclude the citing of a witness in a motor accident claim who has not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal cases. There is nothing in the Act to preclude the citing of a witness in a motor accident claim who has not been named in the list of witnesses in the criminal cases. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Sunita and others v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, 2019 (1) TAC 710 (SC). 14. He has also relied upon a decision of Apex Court rendered in case of Anita Sharma v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2021) 1 SCC 171 wherein the Apex Court held that if the owner-cum-driver of the car was setting up a defence plea that 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 witnesses box and explain as to how the accident had taken place. 15. In the instant case, neither the owner nor the driver of the bus was testified before the court below. 16. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 17. It is an admitted case to both the parties that accident had taken place on 13.06.2012. The appellant claimed that accident had taken place on Bijnoree-Moradabad Road while PW-1 had stated in her cross-examination that it occurred before Noorpur, while PW-2, Mahesh had deposed that accident was caused on Bijnoree-Noorpur Marg. The mentioning of Bijnoree-Noorpur Road or Bijnoree-Moradabad Road would not make much difference in the light of the fact that accident had taken place on the eve of 13.06.2012 while Constable Rakesh Kumar was returning home from his duty. He was posted as a Constable in U.P. Government. Due the said accident, he had sustained severe injuries which resulted in his death in District Government Hospital, Agra on 29.08.2012. 18. The claimant, Seema Devi was not an eye-witness and she was informed by Mahesh, the sole eye-witness to the accident. From perusal of the cross-examination of PW-2, Mahesh, it is clear that Bus No. U.P. 15 AT 9224 was coming from Moradabad towards Noorpur. Noorpur is part of District-Bijnoree, thus, the site plan which was prepared showing the accident to have taken place between Bijnoree and Moradabad does not belie the statement of PW-2. Mere mentioning of Noorpur in place of Bijnoree which is the district would not lead to conclusion that accident did not take place. Noorpur is part of District-Bijnoree, thus, the site plan which was prepared showing the accident to have taken place between Bijnoree and Moradabad does not belie the statement of PW-2. Mere mentioning of Noorpur in place of Bijnoree which is the district would not lead to conclusion that accident did not take place. Moreover, the appellants had a chance of producing the owner and driver as witness to prove their case, which they failed to do so. 19. Not discharging the onus for proving the statement of PW-2 to be incorrect, the appellants, at this stage, cannot argue that the accident had not taken place. They had the opportunity to present their witnesses in support of their contention which they failed to do so and, thus, did not discharge their obligation which would not lead to the conclusion that accident had not taken place. The entire scheme of the Act of 1988 revolves around that standard to be followed in such claims is one of preponderance of probability, rather than one of proving beyond reasonable doubt. 20. The deceased, Rakesh Kumar was a constable employed in U.P. Police and had died due to injuries caused by accident. It was after investigation that charge-sheet was filed against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 21. On the question of delayed F.I.R., I find that claim cannot be faulted for the reason that claimant was attending the deceased, Rakesh Kumar for more than two months in Hospital at Bijnoree and, thereafter, at Agra with two minor daughters. The delay in F.I.R. at her end would not give any benefit to the appellant for denying compensation or raising plea suspecting the accident to have taken place. 22. It is natural that once an earning member dies, it cannot be expected from the widow or minor children to initiate legal proceedings immediately. It takes time for the family to recover from the set back caused to it. Therefore, I find that argument raised from appellant side questioning the delay in lodging the First Information Report and also suspecting the place of accident has no force and cannot be accepted. 23. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the argument raised from appellant side needs consideration, in view of law laid down by Gauhati High Court in case of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania v. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria, 2018 Supreme (Gau) 966, Mst. 23. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the argument raised from appellant side needs consideration, in view of law laid down by Gauhati High Court in case of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania v. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria, 2018 Supreme (Gau) 966, Mst. Aisha Bano (supra) and Smt. Kalpana Madhu Gavali (supra). 24. In Mst. Aisha Bano (supra), the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found that component of compensation under the heading of loss of future prospect is not be subjected to interest, and the Court held as under:- "12. The third and last contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the portion of compensation granted under the head of loss of future prospects should not have been subjected to payment of any interest thereon. This argument of the learned Counsel carries force due to the fact that future prospects are relatable to an income to be received in the future and, as such, there could not be any loss to the claimants for the payment of future prospects at the time the deceased met with the accident. The reason for awarding interest on the compensation amount, minus the future prospects, is due to the fact that, though the loss of dependency starts from the date of the accident, the compensation amount is computed on the date of the award of the Tribunal, interest is awarded to compensate the loss of money value on account of lapse of time, such as the time taken for the legal proceedings and for the denial of right to utilize the money when due. However, future prospects are with regard to probable income to be received in the future and, as such, there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest for the loss that is to occur in the future, as the future is yet to happen. Further, future prospects are given for the entire future and, as such, the claimant is getting compensation in a lumpsum under future prospects prior to the occurrence of future event(s). Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. Thus, with regard to future prospects, this Court is of the view that there cannot be any interest on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. The same view has been taken by the Gauhati High Court in cases reported as 2018 Supreme (Gau) 966'; and 2019 Supreme (Gau) 507', therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is accepted that the component of compensation under the head of loss of future prospects is not to be subjected to interest. " 25. In Smt. Kalpana Madhu Gavali (supra), the Bombay High Court took a similar view and held that there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest for the loss that is to occur in future as the future is yet to happen. Relevant para 19 is extracted hereasunder:- "19. Coming to the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent Corporation on the decision of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar High Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Mst. Aisha Bano and Ors. (supra), which decision has placed reliance on a similar view taken by the Guwahati High Court in the cases of Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania v. Kamal Kumar Sovasaria and Nasima Begum v. Keramat Ali, while submitting that, if this Court was inclined to consider future prospects, then in any event, compensation granted under the head of loss of future prospects should not be subjected to payment of any interest thereon, I am in agreement with the said submission. I am in agreement with the reasoning given in paragraph 12 of the said decision that future prospects are with regard to probable income to be received in the future and as such, there is no requirement to compensate the claimant by way of future interest for the loss that is to occur in future as the future is yet to happen. The said paragraph 12 is usefully quoted as under: ........................." 26. I am in agreement with the decisions of Gauhati High Court, Bombay High Court and and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that no interest can be awarded on future prospect, as interest cannot be awarded for something/income which is due in future. 27. The said paragraph 12 is usefully quoted as under: ........................." 26. I am in agreement with the decisions of Gauhati High Court, Bombay High Court and and Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that no interest can be awarded on future prospect, as interest cannot be awarded for something/income which is due in future. 27. In view of above, the instant appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 06.08.2016 is modified as follows:- S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal 1. Monthly Income (A) Rs. 19,055/- 2. Annual Income (A x 12 = B) Rs. 2,28,660/- 3. Deduction towards Personal Expenses (C) 1/3rd of Rs. 2,28,660/- = Rs. 76,220/- 4. Annual Loss of Dependency (B-C = D) Rs. 2,28,660 – Rs. 76,200/- = Rs. 1,52,440/- 5. Multiplier 16 6. Total Loss of Dependency (D x E) Rs. 1,52,440/- x 16 = Rs. 24,39,040/- 7. Loss of Consortium (Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd v. Nanu Ram) Rs. 40,000/- x 4 = Rs. 1,60,000/- 8. Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- 9. Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- 10. Interest 7% 11. Total Compensation Rs. 26,29,040/- + 7% Interest Calculation of Loss of Future Prospects S. No. Heads Awarded by the Tribunal 1. Annual Income towards loss of Future Prospects (50 % of Annual Income) 50% of Rs. 2,28,660/- = Rs. 1,14,440/- 2. Deduction towards Personal Expenses 1/3rd of Rs. 1,14,440/- = Rs. 38,146.67/- 3. Annual Loss of Future Prospects Rs. 1,14,440 – Rs. 38,146.67= Rs. 76,293.33/- 4. Multiplier 16 5. Total loss of Future Prospects Rs. 76,293.33 x 16 = Rs. 12,20,693.28/- 6. Interest NIL 7. Total Loss of Future Prospects Rs. 12,20,693.28/- 28. The amount of compensation which has already been deposited before the Tribunal on 02.08.2017 shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants/respondents in terms of the award of the Tribunal, after proper identification. 29. The excess amount, if any, deposited shall be reimbursed to the appellant-Insurance Company.