JUDGMENT ON BOARD : 1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 27.04.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kondagaon, District: Kondagaon, (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 41/2013 wherein, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition in toto preferred by the appellants/claimants. 2. As per claim petition, on 28.12.2012, when the deceased Mahanguram was returning to his home, at that time, the tractor bearing registration No. CG 17 ZG 0248 (for short the ‘offending vehicle’) which was being driven by respondent No. 1, rashly and negligently, dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died during the course of his treatment. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and duly insured with respondent No. 3. 3. On account of death of Mahanguram arising out of injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,85,000/- on various heads. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove their case. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition without appreciating the evidence available on record. He further submits that Tribunal although held the respondent No. 1 liable for cause of accident, but did not consider the death of deceased occurred after 15 days arising out of vehicular accident, which is per se illegal and the P.M. report i.e. Ex.P/6 also indicate that cause and nature of death is ‘accidental’. He also submits that when the respondent No. 1 was held to be liable for cause of accident then the Tribunal ought to have considered the death of deceased occurred arising out of the same accident and then awarded reasonable compensation, however, the Tribunal did not grant even single penny to the claimants, therefore, the impugned award as passed by the learned Claims Tribunal may be set aside and reasonable compensation may be granted to the claimants after considering the evidence available on record. In support, reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621 . 5. In support, reliance has been placed on the decision of Supreme Court in the matter of Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621 . 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company while admitting the fact that no appeal has been filed by the respondent No. 3/Insurance company, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the claim petition, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Before the Claims Tribunal, appellant No. 1-wife of the deceased has been examined as AW-1 whereas respondent No. 1 and 2 did not lead any evidence and respondent No. 3 has examined A.B. Mate [NAW-3 (1)] and Ramkaran Ratre as [NAW-3 (2)]. 8. Appellant No. 1, wife of deceased Mahanguram, has stated in evidence that while the deceased was returning to his home after completing his labour work between the villages Sonabal and Polang, the offending vehicle being driven by its driver i.e. respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased thereby causing accident as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries over his left shoulder and knee of left leg. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted in R.N.T. Hospital, Kondagaon and thereafter was referred to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur where after treatment he was sent to his home and while treatment ultimately her husband died on 12.01.2013 i.e. after 16 days of the accident. It is also stated by her that deceased used to earn Rs. 4,500/- by doing labour work. In her cross-examination by insurance company she remained firm, however, in order to rebut her evidence the respondent No. 1 and 2 did not produce any evidence before the Claims Tribunal. In support of her evidence she has filed the documents, such as, Final Report (Ex.P/1) mentioning the name of respondent No. 1 Vidya Singh Baghel, FIR (Ex/P/2), Crime details form containing map (Ex.P/3), Merg Intimation (Ex.P/4) and post-mortem report (Ex.P/6) as well as Seizure Memo (Ex.P/7). In support of her evidence she has filed the documents, such as, Final Report (Ex.P/1) mentioning the name of respondent No. 1 Vidya Singh Baghel, FIR (Ex/P/2), Crime details form containing map (Ex.P/3), Merg Intimation (Ex.P/4) and post-mortem report (Ex.P/6) as well as Seizure Memo (Ex.P/7). After completion of investigation, police has filed Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against Non-applicant No. 1, Vidya Singh and framed charges under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC for accidental death of Mahanguram caused by Non-applicant No. 1 Vidya Singh by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle, by virtue of which offending vehicle and its documents were seized. Hence, after perusal of her evidence coupled with the documents relating to criminal case papers, it is clear that the death of deceased Mahanguram occurred in the vehicular accident caused by respondent No. 1. 9. The approach of the Tribunal in not awarding any compensation to the claimants is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mathew Alexander (supra) wherein, it was held by the Supreme Court in Para 9 as under: “9. Insofar as the claim petition filed by the Appellant herein is concerned, alleged negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry and pickup van in causing the accident has to be proved. That is a matter which has to be considered on the basis of preponderance of the possibilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is left to the parties in the claim petitions filed by the Appellant herein or other claimants to let in their respective evidence and the burden is on them to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the Alto car, the tanker lorry or pickup van, as the case may be, in causing the accident. In such an event, the claim petition would be considered on its own merits. It is needless to observe that if the proof of negligence on the part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not established then, in that event, the claim petition will be disposed of accordingly. In this context, we could refer to judgments of this Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. It is needless to observe that if the proof of negligence on the part of the drivers of the three vehicles is not established then, in that event, the claim petition will be disposed of accordingly. In this context, we could refer to judgments of this Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Anmal reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354 , wherein the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected. It was observed that culpable rashness under Section 304-A of IPC is more drastic than negligence under the law of torts to create liability. Similarly, in (2009) 13 SCC 530 , in the case of Bimla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation (“Bimla Devi”), it was observed that in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle. A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. To the same effect is the observation made by this Court in Dulcina Fernandes vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz, (2013) 10 SCC 646 which has referred to the aforesaid judgment in Bimla Devi.” 10. It is surprised to note that the learned claims Tribunal although held the driver/respondent No. 1 liable for cause of accident, but did not consider the death of deceased occurred arising out of the accident, which in my considered opinion is not sustainable in law, therefore, considering the evidence of appellant No. 1 and documents in relation to criminal case filed by her, it is held that deceased died due to injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident, caused by respondent No. 1. In view thereof, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal with regard to issue No.2 that as a matter of fact the death of deceased did not occur arising out of vehicular accident deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 11. Now, I shall deal with the Issue No. 3 framed by learned Claims Tribunal with respect to breach of policy conditions. NAW-3 (2), Shri Ramkaran Ratre working as Assistant Grade-II in the office of regional transport officer Jagdalpur has stated that the License No. V/3047/BTR/17 (brought on record) showing the name of Vidya Singh Baghel has not been issued from the office of RTO, Jagdalpur, on the basis of which, NAW-3 (1) Shri A.B. Mate, working as Branch Manager in United India Insurance Company Limited has also stated as such while admitting the fact that the offending vehicle was insured with its Insurance Company. They were not subjected to cross-examination, therefore, their evidence inspires confidence and trust-worthy with respect to fact that on the date of incident the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions and I hold accordingly. 12. It is pertinent to mention here that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. The Tribunals must bear in mind the object of the Act in awarding just and proper compensation to the victims in motor accident cases and it is also the bounden duty of the Courts/Tribunals to see that the victim or injured of the motor accident cases is properly and reasonably compensated and in assessing what has been described as a just compensation under the Act, all factors including possibilities have to be kept in mind. In the present case, the appellants, being wife and father of the deceased, are residing in Bastar area and the deceased met with vehicular accident and that the matter is pending since more than 10 years from institution of claim petition, and if the matter is remanded back to the learned Claims Tribunal, then the claimants would have suffered more, therefore, in the interest of justice and looking to the object of the benevolent legislation, this Court is going to assess the just and proper compensation as under. 13. In the light of above, I shall now compute and assess the compensation. 13. In the light of above, I shall now compute and assess the compensation. As regards the award of compensation to the claimants, Appellant No. 1 pleaded that deceased was aged 45 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs. 4,500/- per month by doing labour work. Considering the facts of the case, looking to the nature of work of the deceased and minimum wages as prevailed in the year 2012, I propose to compute the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,500/- per month on notional basis and accordingly, the deceased’s annual income would come to Rs. 54,000/- per annum. 14. So far as future prospects is concerned, the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 45 years according to postmortem report and as per the law laid down in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the applicable percentage would be 25 for the purpose of calculating future prospects of the deceased and if 25% (Rs. 13,500/-) is added towards future prospects then his annual income would come to Rs. 67,500/-. There are two dependents upon the deceased and looking to the dependency of the deceased, 1/3 deduction would be applicable as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Accordingly, 1/3 amount of annual income is deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then after deduction the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 45,000/- (Rs. 67,500-22,500/-). Looking to age of the deceased as 45 years, the applicable multiplier would be 14 as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and if Loss of Dependency is multiplied by 14 then the total Loss of Dependency would come to Rs. 6,30,000/-. 15. In addition to above, taking the guidance of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and Pranay Sethi (supra), the appellant No. 1 being the wife of the deceased, is entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards Spousal Consortium and Rs. 40,000/- to appellant No. 2 towards Filial Consortium. Likewise, the appellants are also entitled to be awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Rs. 40,000/- towards Spousal Consortium and Rs. 40,000/- to appellant No. 2 towards Filial Consortium. Likewise, the appellants are also entitled to be awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards Funeral Expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards Loss of Estate. In this way, the appellants are entitled to be awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,40,000/-. 16. Accordingly, the appellants are held entitled to be awarded a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition dated 01.03.2013, till its realization. 17. Since this Court has already held in Para 10 that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions, therefore, respondent No. 1 and 2 are held liable for payment of compensation. The compensation awarded by this Court shall be disbursed to the appellants in the ratio of 70:30 i.e. 70% of the awarded amount would be payable to appellant No.1 whereas, appellant No. 2 would get 30%. 18. As per evidence of NAW-3 (1) A.B. Mate, Branch Manager of respondent No.3-Insurance Company, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3-United India Insurance Company Limited, in that view of the matter, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the respondent No. 3- Insurance Company, shall pay the amount of compensation first to the claimants and then recover the same from respondent No. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in accordance with law. 19. In the result, the impugned award is modified to the extend indicated herein- above. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.