JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appears for the other respondents despite notice. 2. This is an appeal against the Judgment & Order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl (Tribunal) in MACT Case No. 47/2019 awarding the respondent No. 1 (claimant) a sum of Rs. 25,53,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application (05.09.2019). 3. Facts of the case in brief is that the son of the respondent No. 1 i.e., Lalchhandama was driving a taxi bearing registration No. MZ 01 H 0588 on 28.06.2019. On board the taxi were two (2) other passengers namely, Lalrinawmi and Lalrammawia, who were both resident of Edenthar Veng, Aizawl. At around 8 AM while the taxi was being driven through Phunchawng, a Tipper bearing registration No. MZ 01 N 6026 coming from the opposite direction and proceeding towards Aizawl hit the taxi and as a result, the driver of the taxi and his two (2) passengers were injured. They were given first-aid at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl but the driver of the taxi having sustained severe injuries was referred to LRM Hospital as there was no bed in the ICU at the Civil Hospital, Aizawl. The driver of the taxi then succumbed to his injuries on 01.07.2019. In view of his death due to the accident, the respondent No. 1 (claimant), who is the mother of the deceased filed claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation. According to the respondent No. 1, the deceased was employed to drive the taxi by the respondent No. 5 and he gave him a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/-. The offending vehicle (Tipper) was validly insured with the instant appellant under Policy No. 015950202900 with the validity from 30.03.2019 to 29.03.2000 and the claim application was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V Act). 4. In the claim application, the respondent No. 1 made the owner of the Tipper as O.P - 1, the driver of the Tipper as O.P – 2, the first owner of the taxi as O.P – 3, the second owner of the taxi and employer of the deceased as O.P – 4 and the appellant Insurance Company as O.P – 5. All the arrayed opposite parties filed their respective written statements. The respondent No. 1 in support of her claim examined three (3) claimant witnesses including herself as CW-1. CW-2 Lalremmawia was one of the occupants of the taxi at the time of the accident while CW-3 is the owner of the taxi and employer of the deceased person. As for the opposite parties besides filing their written statement, they did not produce any witness. The Tribunal upon the conclusion of the evidence led by the claimant and after hearing the parties passed the impugned Judgment & Order in the manner as already stated in the preceding paragraph. 5. Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel submits that two (2) main grounds have been raised in the instant appeal for challenging the impugned Judgment & Order. The first ground is that no FIR was filed in respect of the vehicular accident, which was said to have happened on 28.06.2019 at Phunchawng. Secondly, the Tribuanl has accepted the income of the deceased person on the basis of a Certificate issued by the by the respondent No. 5/O.P – 4 which is on the higher side and without any basis. He submits that in the absence of any FIR, the occurrence of the accident itself being doubtful, the learned Tribunal could not have awarded compensation to the respondent No. 1. That since the employer failed to maintain any receipt for paying the deceased a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as his salary, the income of the deceased cannot be said to be proved and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal should therefore be set aside. In support of his submission, Mr. Roshan Subedi has relied upon the following decisions:- (1) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2019) 6 GLR 234 (2) Gohar Mohammed Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. 6. Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that since the respondent No. 1 had to be taken care of after the accident, the FIR could not be filed immediately. However, the respondent No. 1 sought to file an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of the Vaivakawn Police Station on 06.09.2019, the same was refused to be entertained. However, the respondent No. 1 sought to file an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of the Vaivakawn Police Station on 06.09.2019, the same was refused to be entertained. Likewise, the respondent No. 1 tried to submit an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Aizawl on the same day, but the same was again refused. Therefore, under the circumstance, the respondent No. 1 did not have any option but to proceed with the claim application without the FIR. The learned counsel submits that non- registration of an FIR does not vitiate the claim of the respondent No. 1 for payment of compensation on account of the death of her son in view of the fact that one of the occupants of the taxi which met with the accident was examined as claimant witness No. 2 i.e., Lalremmawia. CW-2 in his examination-in-chief clearly stated that on 28.06.2019, he hired the taxi driven by the deceased from Edenthar to Sairang and he was accompanied by his wife Lalrinawmi (L). According to CW-2, the deceased drove the taxi carefully and under the speed limit but unfortunately when they reached the curved road at Phunchawng area, the Tipper which was coming from the opposite direction hit the taxi and as a result, they were all injured. They were taken to Civil Hospital, Aizawl where they were given first-aid. As for the deceased, he was transferred to LRM Hospital as he was seriously injured and that no bed was available in the ICU at Civil Hospital. The learned counsel submits that CW-2 being a witness to the accident and also not an interested party in the claim application, his evidence can be relied upon to award compensation to the respondent No. 1. 7. In so far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 5/O.P-4 not only gave a Certificate that he paid the deceased person a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- but he also gave his deposition on oath before the Tribunal which has not been countered by the appellant Insurance Company. Therefore, in absence of any rebuttal evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the respondent No. 1. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 244 . Therefore, in absence of any rebuttal evidence, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the respondent No. 1. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Kishan Gopal & Anr. Vs. Lala & Ors. (2014) 1 SCC 244 . The learned counsel submits that unlike a criminal case, in a claim under the M.V Act, there is no requirement for the claimant to prove the case projected by him with proof beyond reasonable doubt. A claim under the M.V Act can be allowed on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 530 . 8. The learned counsel in support of his submission that since an eyewitness had clearly deposed about the occurrence of the accident by standing as one of the claimant’s witness, further proof of the accident would not be required relies upon the following decisions:- (1) Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand & Ors. (2011) 11 SCC 635 (2) Vimla Devi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2019) 2 SCC 186 (3) Anita Sharma & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. 9. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. CW-1 (the claimant) in her examination-in-chief stated that she is the mother of the deceased and legal guardian of one Sanghmingthanga. On the morning of 28.06.2019 at around 8 AM, there was a motor accident at Phunchawng village. It was revealed that his son who was driving the taxi with two (2) passengers were hit by a Tipper coming from the opposite direction towards Aizawl. The driver and the passengers of the taxi were injured and were given first-aid at Civil Hospital, Aizawl but her son who was the driver of the taxi sustained serious injuries and he was referred to LRM Hospital since there was no vacant bed in the ICU at Civil Hospital, Aizawl. Later, her son succumbed to his injuries at LRM Hospital on 01.07.2019. CW-1 stated that her son was employed by the owner of the taxi Sh. R. Lalthazuala, who paid him a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Later, her son succumbed to his injuries at LRM Hospital on 01.07.2019. CW-1 stated that her son was employed by the owner of the taxi Sh. R. Lalthazuala, who paid him a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. She lived with her deceased son along with her disabled son Sanghmingthanga and also Jennifer P.C. Zodinthari, who is her granddaughter at Chanmari West. They all were dependent upon the income of her deceased son and that they do not have any other source of income. Her son use to submit whatever money he received from driving the said taxi for their daily expenses. She further stated that since her deceased son was seriously injured at the relevant time and as he needed attention all the time, the FIR could not be filed. However, later on, when they tried to file the FIR, the same was refused by the Officer-in-Charge of Vaivakawn Police Station on the ground that all their system were computerized and that the report will be deemed as false because of it. Subsequently, they also attempted to file an FIR before the Superintendent of Police, Aizawl but the same was again refused. 10. CW-2 who admittedly was one of the occupants of the taxi at the time of the accident stated in his examination-in-chief that on 28.06.2019, he hired the taxi which was driven by the deceased from Edenthar to Sairang and he was accompanied by his wife Lalrinawmi (L). The driver of the taxi drove the taxi carefully and under the speed limit but when they reached the curved road at Phunchawng area, one Tipper coming from the opposite direction hit the taxi. As a result, the driver as well as he and his wife were injured and they were evacuated to Civil Hospital, Aizawl where they received first-aid. As for the driver of the taxi, since there was no vacant bed in the ICU of the Civil Hospital, Aizawl, he was transferred to LRM Hospital. Later, they came to know that he succumbed to his injury at LRM Hospital on 01.07.2019. CW-2 reiterated the fact that the taxi was being driven by the driver (deceased) carefully and slowly in the extreme corner of the curved road and beyond the white line marking at the side of the road. Later, they came to know that he succumbed to his injury at LRM Hospital on 01.07.2019. CW-2 reiterated the fact that the taxi was being driven by the driver (deceased) carefully and slowly in the extreme corner of the curved road and beyond the white line marking at the side of the road. There was a Tank Lorry on the right side at the place of accident, which was overtaken by the Tipper and which resulted in the accident. He stated that as an eyewitness to the accident, the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the Tipper who drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident. 11. CW-3 in his examination-in-chief stated that he employed the deceased for driving his taxi and he gave him a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as his salary. That he employed him from January, 2019 till his death on 01.07.2019. It may be seen that the evidence led by the three (3) claimant witnesses were not rebutted or falsified during their cross-examination. The opposite parties also did not lead any evidence to the contrary. The driver of the Tipper bearing registration No. MZ 01 N 6026 as already stated earlier was arrayed as O.P – 2 and in his written statement, he stated that on 28.06.2019 at around 8 AM while he was driving the said Tipper, he met with an accident at Phunchawng with a Maruti 800 taxi bearing registration No. MZ 01 H 0588 driven by Lalchhandama (the deceased). He stated that the driver of the taxi sustained grave injury on the spot and later he came to know that he succumbed to his injuries on 01.07.2019. He also stated that at the time of the accident, he was holding a valid driving license and the vehicle he drove was validly insured with the present appellant and therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. 12. Similarly, the owner of the Tipper who was arrayed as O.P – 1 in the claim application filed his written statement stating that he is the registered owner of the Tipper and that the vehicle was validly insured with the instant appellant with a validity from 30.03.2019 to 29.03.2020 and therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 13. 13. Although it is stated that no FIR has been registered on account of the said accident and that there is also no indication that there was even a G.D entry made by the police but yet materials available on record goes to show that an accident had happened between the Maruti taxi and the Tipper vehicle on 28.06.2019 at around 8 AM in the morning. Following the accident, the son of the respondent No. 1 expired on 01.07.2019. The claimant’s witnesses more particularly CW-2 who was one of the passenger of the taxi which met with the accident and a not an interested person to the claim have also maintained that the driver of the taxi was driving the taxi carefully whereas the driver of the Tipper carelessly drove the vehicle and while overtaking a Tank Lorry park on the road side, it hit the taxi, resulting in the accident. Under the circumstance, there is no reason for disbelieving that the accident had happened and it was the Tipper who had cause the accident. In so far as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, CW-3 not only issued a Certificate to the effect that he employed the deceased person as his driver to drive the taxi by paying him Rs. 15,000/- per month but he also testified the same before the Tribunal on oath and he was also subjected to cross-examination. As already stated, his testimony has not been rebutted nor falsified by the opposite parties including the instant appellant. Under the circumstance, there is no reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal based on the monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- earned by the deceased person. 14. The Apex Court in Bimla Devi & Ors. (supra) in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that the Tribunal was right in taking a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties. 15. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties. 15. Having come to the above conclusion, discussion upon the other authorities relied upon by the parties are found to be not necessary. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be without merit and the same is dismissed.