JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the claimants against the award dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 351/2014 wherein, the Tribunal has rejected the claim petition in toto preferred by the appellants/claimants. 2. As per claim petition, on 27.03.2012, when the deceased Dhruv Kumar Yadav, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2 to 6 was going to Village: Vidhadih to attend wedding procession of Purushottam Patel, on tractor bearing registration No. CG 10 AC 1824 and trolley bearing registration No. MP 26 E 0351, (in short ‘the offending vehicle’) which was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently, as a result of which, deceased fell down from the trolley and came under the wheels of trolley and died. At the time of accident, offending vehicle was not insured and was owned by respondent No. 2. 3. On account of death of Dhruv Kumar Yadav, the claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- 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 the accident. 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 the vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently causing the accident, due to which the deceased fell down from the trolley and sustained grievous injuries and died. He further submits that as per final report and other documents, FIR was registered against the respondent No. 1 under Section 304-A of IPC and final report submitted by police after investigation against the non-applicants/ respondents under Section 304-A of IPC and under Section 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the amount of compensation, however, the Tribunal did not grant even single penny to the claimants, thus, 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. 5. Therefore, the respondents are liable to pay the amount of compensation, however, the Tribunal did not grant even single penny to the claimants, thus, 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. 5. On the other hand, counsel appearing for the respondents (owner and driver) supports the impugned judgment and submits that there was delay in lodging the FIR, and the driver of the offending vehicle has been acquitted of the charge under Section 304-A of IPC and there is no evidence available on record to prove the involvement of respondent No. 1 in the said accident, therefore, 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. A vehicular accident occurred on 27.03.2012, the deceased Dhruv Kumar Yadav died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No. 1. Before the claims Tribunal, in order to prove the accident, Gondabai wife of the deceased has examined herself as PW-1 and one Kaushal Shrivas as PW-2 who is the eye witness to the accident. In her statement Gondabai has stated about the manner in which the accident took place claiming the life of her husband, the statement of Gondabai found support from the statement of eye witness to the incident Kaushal Shriwas (AW-2). 8. The accident was reported to the police station Masturi where offence under Section 304-A of IPC has been registered against the driver i.e. respondent No. 1 Bhagwat Patel of the offending vehicle as per FIR (Ex.P/1). After completion of investigation, police has filed Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. against non-applicants under Section 304-A of IPC and under Section 146/196 of M.V. Act for accidental death of Dhruv Kumar Yadav caused by Non-applicant No. 1 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle without insurance, by virtue of which offending vehicle and its documents were seized. Hence, after perusal of the evidence coupled with the documents relating to criminal case papers and driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined, therefore, it is clear that the death of deceased Dhruv Kumar Yadav occurred in the vehicular accident caused by respondent No. 1. Appellant No. 1 has also tendered and exhibited copy of Final Report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as Ex.P/1, Copy of FIR Ex.P/2, Merg Intimation vide Ex.P/3, Property Seizure memo Ex.P/4 and Postmortem Report as Ex.P/5 in order to ascertain the factum of accident that took place on 27.03.2012. 9. A perusal of impugned award would reveal that the learned Tribunal despite there being material documents available on record showing the accident caused by driver i.e. respondent No. 1, has dismissed the claim petition without awarding any single penny. The approach of the Tribunal in not awarding any compensation to the claimants is not sustainable. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mathew Alexander v. Mohammed Shafi and Another reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 531 : 2023 INSC 621 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. In view of above, considering the evidence and documents filed on behalf of appellants, 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. 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. 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 children of the deceased 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. 12. 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 30 years at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.18,000/- per month by doing the work of Dairy farming and herding, however, there is no documentary evidence available on record to to substantiate the said fact. Considering the facts of the case, looking to the nature of work of the deceased and minimum wages as prevailed, I propose to compute the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,277/- per month and accordingly, the deceased’s annual income would come to Rs.51,324/- per annum. 13. Considering the facts of the case, looking to the nature of work of the deceased and minimum wages as prevailed, I propose to compute the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,277/- per month and accordingly, the deceased’s annual income would come to Rs.51,324/- per annum. 13. So far as future prospects is concerned, the age of the deceased at the time of accident is 30 years according to postmortem report (Ex.P/5) and as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the applicable percentage would be 40 for the purpose of calculating future prospects of the deceased and if 40% (Rs.20,529/-) is added towards future prospects then his annual income would come to Rs.71,853/-. There are six dependents upon the deceased and looking to the dependency of the deceased, 1/4 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, 1/4 amount of annual income is deducted towards his personal and living expenses. Then after deduction, the loss of dependency would come to Rs.53,890/- (Rs.71,853-17,963/-). Looking to age of the deceased as 30 years, the applicable multiplier would be 17 as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) and if Loss of Dependency is multiplied by 17 then the total Loss of Dependency would come to Rs.9,16,130/-. 14. 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 appellant Nos. 2 to 6 being children of the deceased is also entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards Parental 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.2,70,000/-. 15. 2 to 6 being children of the deceased is also entitled to be awarded Rs.40,000/- each towards Parental 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.2,70,000/-. 15. Accordingly, the appellants are held entitled to be awarded a total sum of Rs.11,86,130/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing of claim petition dated 20.02.2013, till its realization. 16. In the result the appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation awarded by this Court shall be paid by respondents along with interest. Accordingly, the impugned award is hereby set aside.