JUDGMENT 1. Since common question of law is involved in aforesaid M.A. Nos. 4567 of 2019, 4714 of 2019 and 4715 of 2019, therefore, they are heard analogously and are decided by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, facts mentioned in M.A. No. 4567 of 2019 are taken into consideration. 2. These appeals have been filed assailing the judgment dated 24.7.2019 passed by Seventh Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior (M.P.) in Claim Case Nos. 1341 of 2017, 1370 of 2017 and 1369 of 2017. Claim Case No. 1341 of 2017 was filed by appellants/claimants of M.A. No. 4567 of 2019 for grant of compensation on account of death of Gajendra, Claim Case No. 1370 of 2017 was filed by appellants/claimants of M.A. No. 4714 of 2019 for grant of compensation on account of death of Purushottam, and Claim Case No. 1369 of 2017 was filed by appellant/claimant of M.A. No. 4715 of 2019 for grant of compensation on account of injury sustained by her, in a road traffic accident occurred on 21.10.2017 involving offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.MP07-P-0839. At the time of accident, respondent No. 1 - Raju Yadav was the owner and respondent No. 2 - Rammilan was the driver of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3/insurance company. 3. Driver and owner of the offending vehicle filed their written statements and denied the allegations made in the claim petition and further submitted that since the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, therefore, insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 4. Insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and further stated that offending vehicle was being plied in violation of policy terms and conditions, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned claims tribunal after hearing the rival parties and after going through the evidence dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants against which present miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that learned claims tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants without appreciating the evidence produced by the claimants. 5. Learned claims tribunal after hearing the rival parties and after going through the evidence dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants against which present miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that learned claims tribunal has wrongly dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants without appreciating the evidence produced by the claimants. The claimants have duly proved that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2 - driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP07-P-0839, however, learned claims tribunal committed error in helding that the aforesaid bus was not involved in the accident. It is further argued that during investigation, aforesaid offending vehicle Bus was also seized from the spot. Respondent No. 1 - owner of the offending vehicle also accepted the fact that his bus was involved in the accident and respondent No. 2 was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The eye-witnesses have also supported the case of the claimants. Further argument is that the claims tribunal has also calculated the compensation amount on the lower side and in view of the case law of National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors.; 2017 ACJ 2700 , claimants are also eligible for compensation under the heads of "future prospects" and in other heads. Income of the deceased persons have also been assessed on the lower side by learned claims tribunal. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and grant just and proper compensation to the claimants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company argued that learned claims tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants as they failed to prove that the accident occurred on the account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP07-P-0839 by respondent No.2 and no interference is warranted in the same. Hence, prayed to dismissed these miscellaneous appeals. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. 9. The questions for determination in these appeals are; (i) Whether learned claims tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petitions of the appellants/claimants? and (ii) What would be the just and proper compensation? 10. Hence, prayed to dismissed these miscellaneous appeals. 8. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record. 9. The questions for determination in these appeals are; (i) Whether learned claims tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petitions of the appellants/claimants? and (ii) What would be the just and proper compensation? 10. Apart from claimants, injured eye-witness Suman (AW-2), claimant in Claim Case No. 1369 of 2017, Naval Kishore Gupta, Record Keeper of J.A. Hospital (AW-3), Sanjay @ Sanju (AW-4), Gopal (AW-5) and Mahendra Kumar Pandey, Investigating Officer (AW-6) have been examined. Claimants have also proved documentary evidence i.e. First Information Report (Exh. P1), Merg Intimation of Purushottam (Exh. P-2), Spot Map (Exh. P-3), Seizure of Motorcycle (Exh. P-4), Seizure of offending vehicle (Exh. P-5), Certification of Owner of offending vehicle (Exh. P-6), Memo of Arrest of driver of the offending vehicle/accused (Exh. P-7), papers regarding bail and bonds of accused (Exh. P-9 and P-10), charge-sheet filed under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle (Exh. P-11), Merg Intimation of Gajendra (Exh. P-12), Post-mortem Reports of deceased Gajendra and Purshottam and Record of J.A. Hospital (Exh. P-31) to prove their case. 11. FIR (Exh. P-1) is registered against the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP07-P-0839 on the next day on 22.10.2017. It is pertinent to mention that the accident occurred on 21.10.2017 at about 20:30. In Merg Intimation (Exh. P-2 and P-12), cause of death was mentioned as vehicular accident by Bus No. MP07-P-0839. The offending vehicle has been seized during investigation and the owner of the offending vehicle certified s per Exh. P-6 that the accident occurred by his Bus bearing registration No. MP07- P-0839. Driver of the offending vehicle Rammilan was arrested and memo of arrest was prepared as per Exh. P-7. 12. Mahendra (AW-6), Investigation Officer, in his Court-statement proved the abovementioned documents and stated that after investigation, he had found that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP07-P-0839. 13. Injured eye-witness Suman (AW-2) and eye-witness Sanjay @ Sanju (AW-4) also corroborated the case of the claimants and stated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP07-P-0839. Names of these witnesses are arrayed as eye-witness in the charge-sheet (Exh. 13. Injured eye-witness Suman (AW-2) and eye-witness Sanjay @ Sanju (AW-4) also corroborated the case of the claimants and stated that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP07-P-0839. Names of these witnesses are arrayed as eye-witness in the charge-sheet (Exh. P-11) filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, their presence at the time of accident on the spot cannot be disbelieved upon. The statements of injured eye-witness/claimant Suman and eye-witness Sanjay @ Sanju remained unchallenged and nothing appeared in their cross-examination so as to raise doubt over their statements. 14. Learned claims tribunal on the basis of record of J.A. Hospital Exh. P-31 held that since in Exh. P-31, the person who got admitted the deceased informed that the injury sustained by the deceased was on account of accident between car and motorbike, therefore, offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No. MP07-P-0839 was not involved in the accident, however. above reason is not sufficient to dismiss the petition because Gopal has been examined as AW5 and he has pecifically denied having informed the hospital authorities that the deceased sustained injuries on account of accident occurred between a car and motorcycle. The perusal of Exh. P-31, record of J.A. Hospital, reveals that thumb impression is marked under the form of consent, however, as per Gopal (AW-5), he is M.A. qualified and can read Hindu and English. This witness had also signed his statements, therefore, it is not possible that he had put thumb impression on the hospital papers. Under these circumstances, merely on the basis of some details on Exh. P-31, the hospital record, learned claims tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition of the claimants when the entire story of the claimants is corroborated by the documentary evidence as discussed above as well as oral evidence of eye-witnesses and Investigating Officer. 15. In the case of Kusum Lata and Ors. v. Satbir and Ors.; 2011 ACJ 926 , the Supreme Court has held that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The claimants are required to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 16. Same principle has been followed in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. The claimants are required to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 16. Same principle has been followed in the case of Anita Sharma & Ors. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.; 2021 ACJ 17 . 17. In view of the above settled principle of law so also in the light of the fact that driver of the offending vehicle has not appeared before learned claims tribunal to contradict the version of the claimants, learned claims tribunal has wrongly disbelieved the evidence of the claimants' witnesses which are corroborated by documentary evidence. 18. Learned counsel for the insurance company cited the case law of Basanti & Ors. v. Bhabuta Ram & Ors.; 2024 (1) T.A.C. 408 (Raj.) in which the particulars of offending vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR, however, in this case, the details of the offending vehicle is mentioned in the FIR as well as in the Merg Intimation, therefore, the insurance company cannot get any benefit from the above case law. 19. Learned counsel for the insurance company has also relied upon the case law of Vijay vs. Nilesh; 2013 (II) MPWN 55 in which the claim was dismissed on account of fabricated documents, however, in the present case, insurance company has failed to prove that any document has been fabricated, therefore, the insurance company cannot get benefit from this case law either. 20. In view of the above discussion, the finding of learned claims tribunal that the claimants failed to prove the involvement of the above offending vehicle bus in the said accident is found to be against the settled principle of law and evidence available on record. Therefore, the aforesaid finding is hereby set aside. 21. Now the question is what would be the just and proper compensation? 22. So far as income of deceased Gajendra is concerned, learned claims tribunal on the basis of evidence available on record has rightly held his income as Rs.5500/- per month and Rs.66,000/- per annum. 23. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased as 22 years and he was unmarried. 23. However, learned claims tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of "future prospects" as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 24. In view of the case law of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. 23. However, learned claims tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of "future prospects" as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 24. In view of the case law of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC 3104 , considering the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.66,000/-, 1/2 dependency (66000 x 1/2 = 33000), 40% future prospects (33000 x 40/100 = 13200/-), multiplier of 18 and Rs.70,000 in other heads, total compensation amount comes to Rs.9,01,600/- [(33000 13200) x 18 70000/-]. 25. As such, the appellants/claimants of M.A. No. 4567 of 2019 are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.9,01,600/- (Rupees Nine Lakh One Thousand Six Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim case before learned claims tribunal. 26. Learned claims tribunal on the basis of evidence available on record has rightly held the income of deceased Purushottam as Rs.5500/- per month and Rs.66,000/- per annum. 27. There is no dispute with regard to age of the deceased as 37 years. 28. However, learned claims tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation under the head of "future prospects" as held in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 29. In view of the case law of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Ors.; AIR 2009 SC 3104 , considering the annual income of the deceased to be Rs.66,000/-, 3/4th dependency (66000 x 3/4 = 49500), 40% future prospects (49500 x 40/100 = 19800/-), multiplier of 15 and Rs.70,000 in other heads, total compensation amount comes to Rs.11,09,500/- [(49500 19800) x 15 70000/-]. 30. As such, the appellants/claimants of M.A. No. 4714 of 2019 are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.11,09,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Nine Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim case before learned claims tribunal. 31. 30. As such, the appellants/claimants of M.A. No. 4714 of 2019 are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.11,09,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Nine Thousand Five Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim case before learned claims tribunal. 31. So far as quantum of compensation in M.A. No. 4715 of 2019 is concerned, learned claims tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- on account of injury sustained by appellant/claimant - Suman and no interference is warranted in the same and it is held that appellant/claimant - Suman is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim case before learned claims tribunal. 32. The amount of compensation shall be payable to the claimants by the insurance company within 12 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 33. If the amount of compensation is in excess to the valuation of appeal, the difference of the Court fee (if not already paid) shall be deposited by the claimants within four weeks' from today and proof thereof shall be submitted before the Registry. Thereafter, Registry shall issue the certified copy of the order passed today. 34. Appeals stand allowed to the aforesaid extent and disposed of. 35. Original copy of this judgment be kept in M.A. No. 4567 of 2019 and certified copy of this judgment be kept in connected M.A. Nos. 4714 of 2019 and 4715 or 2019.