JUDGMENT : Satyen Vaidya, Judge: All these appeals were heard and are being decided together, as common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. On 23.3.2021, vehicle No. HP10B-7034 (Alto Car) met with an accident at place known as Shalawat Kainchi (Rohru-Sungri Road), as it went off the road and fell into a gorge. Two occupants of the car namely Aman Chauhan and Jasvinder died as a result of injuries suffered in the accident. Another person named Prince Chauhan suffered injuries. In this backdrop, three separate claim petitions came to be filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) for compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short the Tribunal). 3. Claim petition bearing No. MAC 11-R/2 of 2021 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Aman Chauhan; MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 was filed by the legal representatives of deceased Jasvinder and MAC 13-R/2 of 2021 was filed by Sh. Prince Chauhan for compensation on account of injuries suffered by him. 4. Learned Tribunal vide separate awards passed on the same date i.e. 22.12.2022 has allowed all the claim petitions, hence the instant appeals by the insurer of the vehicle. 5. Brief facts necessary for adjudication are as under:- 5.1 All the claim petitions were filed with the averments that on the fateful day, Aman Chauhan, Jasvinder, Prince Chauhan and Anil Kumar were travelling in Alto Car No. HP10B-7034. Anil Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the driver) was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. The vehicle was owned by Banti Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as the owner) and was insured with SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurer) at the time of accident. 5.2 In all the petitions, the cause of accident was attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver. 5.3 The owner and driver filed their joint reply. The averments made in the claim petitions were denied in generality, save and except that a specific denial was made to the allegation of rash and negligent driving against the driver. It was submitted that the accident had taken place due to mechanical fault. 5.4 The insurer disputed its liability by alleging breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It was submitted that the accident had taken place due to mechanical fault. 5.4 The insurer disputed its liability by alleging breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. A specific stand was taken that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Aman Chauhan, who did not have a valid driving license. As per insurer, the name of Anil Kumar as driver of the vehicle was planted for the purpose of fastening the liability on the insurer. Reliance was placed on the contents of FIR registered at Police Station, Rohru with respect to the accident, wherein the factum of vehicle being driven by Aman Chauhan was recorded. 6. Learned Tribunal did not believe the defence raised by the respondents. It concluded that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. Accordingly, the following awards were passed: - A) MAC No. 11-R/2 of 2021 titled as Reema Devi & others vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd & others. 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 28,56,000/- 2. Funeral charges Rs.15,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- 4. Consortium for petitioner No.1 (wife) Rs.40,000/- 5. Consortium for petitioner No.2 (son) Rs.40,000/- 6. Consortium for petitioner No.3 (mother) Rs.40,000/- Total Rs.30,06,000/- B) MAC No. 12-R/2 of 2021 titled as Vidya Devi vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd & others. 1. Loss of dependency (Rs. 8400 x 16 x 12) Rs.16,12,800 2. Funeral charges Rs.15,000 3. Loss of estate Rs.15,000 4. Consortium Rs.40,000 Total Rs.16,82,800 C) MAC 13-R/2 of 2021 titled as Prince Chauhan vs. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd & others. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit of awarded amount. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has laid much stress on the fact that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Aman Chauhan and thus, the claim petition by his legal representatives was not maintainable and further the insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured in other two cases also on account of breach of the terms of policy, as Aman Chauhan was not having driving license to drive the vehicle. 9. 9. Learned Tribunal has held that the car was being driven by Anil Kumar and the accident had taken place on account of his rash and negligent driving. It has been held that the insurer had failed to prove its plea; as no cogent and convincing evidence had been led. 10. In order to test the argument raised on behalf of the insurer, it will be apt to make reference to the evidence produced by the parties. 10.1 The claimants have examined a number of witnesses to prove that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by the driver Anil Kumar. PW Loveleet and PW Mithnu Ram have deposed that on 23.3.2021 at about 9.15 p.m., they were near Shalawat Kainchi. Vehicle No. HP10B-7034 came on the spot and both of them signaled for lift. The vehicle was stopped but the ride was refused because it was already occupied by four persons namely Anil Kumar, Aman Chauhan, Jasvinder and Prince Chauhan. According to these witnesses, Anil Kumar was driving the vehicle. Aman Chauhan was occupying the front passenger seat whereas Jasvinder and Prince Chauhan were on the rear seat. They further deposed that the vehicle went off the road after being driven to the distance of about 100 meters and rolled down into a gorge. These witnesses approached the spot of accident and on way met with one Sanjeev Kumar, who also accompanied them to the spot. It has also been the version of these witnesses that three more persons namely Kiran Kumar Rana, Pankaj and Mangat Ram also arrived on the spot. All of them had found that Aman Chauhan was on the front passenger seat with seat belt tied in the slot and Jasvinder along with Prince Chauhan were on the rear seat. They were lying in injured condition and were removed to the Civil Hospital, Rohru in 108 Ambulance. According to these witnesses, the driver Anil Kumar was not found in the vehicle, when they had reached the spot. 10.2 In order to corroborate the version of PWs Loveleet and Mithnu Ram, the claimants have examined Kiran Kumar Rana, Pankaj, Mangat Ram and Sanjeev Kumar. 10.3 According to Sanjeev Kumar, he was resident of nearby place and having heard loud noise had come to know about the rolling down of the vehicle. 10.2 In order to corroborate the version of PWs Loveleet and Mithnu Ram, the claimants have examined Kiran Kumar Rana, Pankaj, Mangat Ram and Sanjeev Kumar. 10.3 According to Sanjeev Kumar, he was resident of nearby place and having heard loud noise had come to know about the rolling down of the vehicle. He had immediately contacted Kiran Kumar Rana a nearby shopkeeper on telephone and had proceeded towards the spot of accident where he met Loveleet and Mithnu Ram. 10.4 Kiran Kumar Rana while making the deposition corroborated the version of Sanjeev Kumar. He narrated that having received the telephone call from Sanjeev Kumar, he along with Mangat Ram and Pankaj had proceeded towards the spot, as they were sitting along with him in the shop. 10.5 In addition to above, the survivor of the accident Prince Chauhan has also been examined as a witness. He also narrated the same story and attributed the cause of accident to the rash and negligent driving of the driver Anil Kumar. 10.6 Anil Kumar has been examined as respondents’ witness. He has admitted that he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and had abandoned the place immediately as he had got frightened and perplexed. 10.7 On the other hand, the insurer has examined one of its officials as the sole witness. This witness produced a copy of final report submitted by the police after investigation, according to which, Aman Chauhan was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 10.8 Another noticeable fact is that all the witnesses namely Loveleet, Kiran Kumar Rana, Pankaj, Mithnu Ram, Mangat Ram and Sanjeev Kumar have stated that they were not questioned about the accident by the police and they all had written to the police in the month of September, 2021 in that regard. 10.9 Prince Chauhan has also stated that after the accident, the police had not questioned him till 1.9.2021 and at that time, he had narrated to the police that the car was being driven by Anil Kumar and the cause of accident was rash and negligent driving of the said person. 11. In the backdrop of above evidence, learned counsel for the insurer has made an effort to persuade this Court to believe that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Aman Chauhan. 11. In the backdrop of above evidence, learned counsel for the insurer has made an effort to persuade this Court to believe that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven by Aman Chauhan. He placed strong reliance on the contents of FIR relating to incident, wherein it was recorded that the car was being driven by Aman Chauhan. Similarly, the contents of final report submitted by the police have also been pressed into service to urge that Anil Kumar was nowhere in picture and in fact, the car was being driven by Aman Chauhan, who did not possess any driving license at that time. He would further contend that the version rendered by the witnesses of claimants was untrustworthy as none of them had come forward to disclose the facts concerning the accident before making depositions before the Tribunal. It has been submitted that the fact that all such persons had written to the Police in the month of September 2021, though, has not been proved, as no witness from Police Station was examined, the said fact even if assumed to be correct by itself is sufficient to doubt its correctness for want of explanation as to what prompted all of them to right simultaneously to the Police after about six months after the accident. It was also argued that the conduct of driver Anil Kumar was not above board. It was not explained as to why he did not disclose true facts to the Police or any other authority with promptitude. Another contention raised on behalf of insurer is that it was highly improbable that Anil Kumar would have escaped without any injury in such a serious accident. Question has also been raised on the conduct of Prince Chauhan by alleging that he had also not disclosed about the involvement of Anil Kumar. 12. As noticed above, according to the police version as inferred from the contents of FIR and final report, the car was being driven by Aman Chauhan, however, the contents of above two documents cannot be said to have been proved in accordance with law. Neither the author of FIR nor the Investigating Officer of the case was examined as witness. 13. Neither the author of FIR nor the Investigating Officer of the case was examined as witness. 13. The contents of FIR otherwise reveal that it was recorded in terms of the version given by ASI Roshan Lal, who allegedly had received information regarding the accident at about 10.28 p.m. from 108 helpline and had thereafter proceeded to the spot of accident along with other police officials. It is not recorded in the FIR that the police officials had found anyone present on the spot of accident on their visit. Even as per the scribe of Rukka, it was on the basis of preliminary inquiry that the factum of Aman Chauhan being driver of the vehicle was recorded. 14. The contents of FIR also do not appear to be beyond shadow of doubt. It records the factum of two of the occupants of car having been declared dead in the hospital and third having been referred to IGMC after first aid. Noticeably, the “Rukka” on the basis of which FIR has been recorded had been scribed at Shalawat Kainchi i.e. the spot of accident at 12.40 a.m. on 24.3.2021. 15. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly not placed reliance on the contents of FIR. Evidently, the informant ASI Roshan Lal has no first-hand version with him which could lend credence to the fact that Aman Chauhan was the driver of the vehicle. Even otherwise it is not understandable as to how ASI Roshan Lal had come to know about the facts that had taken place in Civil Hospital, Rohru, when the police officials had immediately proceeded to the spot on receipt of information of accident and the Rukka was also recorded at the same spot at about 12.40 a.m. on 24.3.2021. 16. The contents of final report submitted by the police also can be of no help to the insurer. In the said report, it has been recorded that the version of Prince Chauhan was taken by the police on 1.9.2021 for the first time. The only explanation for not having questioned Prince Chauhan for about six months after the accident is that Prince Chauhan was insured. It is not the case that Prince Chauhan had remained in such a bad condition for six months that he could not make the statement. There is no medical evidence to support such an inference. The only explanation for not having questioned Prince Chauhan for about six months after the accident is that Prince Chauhan was insured. It is not the case that Prince Chauhan had remained in such a bad condition for six months that he could not make the statement. There is no medical evidence to support such an inference. Even according to Prince Chauhan himself, he remained admitted in the hospital for about one month and thereafter was at his home, though in pain. This brings the conduct of the police in doubt because Prince Chauhan admittedly was one of the occupants of the vehicle and was the best person to provide firsthand information. 17. No doubt, the conduct of the aforesaid witnesses makes their depositions doubtful, still that will not be sufficient to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal, especially when there is no clinching evidence to suggest otherwise. Even if the testimony of all the above witnesses is discarded, the statement of Prince Chauhan remains and is sufficient to uphold the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal. 18. The fact that Anil Kumar had escaped without any injury, though, is hard to believe but in absence of any convincing material to the contrary, the version of the claimants could not be disbelieved. 19. The insurer has also challenged the impugned awards on the ground of quantum. 20. In the case of Aman Chauhan, it was claimed that the deceased Aman Chauhan was running a business under the name and style of Maheshwar Auto Care Service Centre and was earning Rs. 50,000/- per month from the said business. However, the learned Tribunal has held the notional income of deceased Aman Chauhan as Rs. 15,000/- per month. The age of deceased Aman Chauhan was 27 years. The learned Tribunal added 40% on the notional income of deceased towards loss of future prospects. After making deduction of 1/3rd from the monthly income on account of personal expenses, the remainder of Rs. 14,000/- per month was assessed as loss of monthly dependency. On application of multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 28,56,000/-. In addition, Rs. 15,000/- each have been awarded on account of funeral charges and loss of estate besides Rs. 40,000/- for each of the claimants towards loss of consortium. 14,000/- per month was assessed as loss of monthly dependency. On application of multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 28,56,000/-. In addition, Rs. 15,000/- each have been awarded on account of funeral charges and loss of estate besides Rs. 40,000/- for each of the claimants towards loss of consortium. 20.1 Admittedly, the income of deceased Aman Chauhan was not convincingly proved by any documentary evidence. There was nothing on record to show that the deceased was an income tax payee. The claimants had placed on record the bank account statement of Maheshwar Auto Care Service Centre. 20.2 No doubt, in absence of the evidence to prove income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal could draw assumption from some amount of guesswork but the guesswork had to have some objective basis. No reason has been assigned by the learned Tribunal as to why it has assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/-. The bank account statement produced by the claimants also does not support the hypothesis drawn by the learned Tribunal. The deposits found in the bank account statement are in the range of ten to twelve thousand per month, which does not suggest that the deceased was having such a quantum of monetary transactions from which he could earn Rs. 15,000/- as profits. That being so, the assessment of monthly income of deceased at Rs. 15,000/-appears to be excessive. In such situation help can be taken from the minimum wages notified by the State Government for different classes of workmen. Assuming the job of deceased to be of a skilled workman, his income could not be assessed to be more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. By adding 40% towards loss of future prospects the total income would be Rs. 14,000/- per month. Reducing the said amount by 1/3rd on account of personal expenses of the deceased, the monthly loss of dependency would be Rs. 9,333/- and hence by applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency will be Rs. 9333X12X17=19,03,932/-. The remaining components need no change as these are in total conformity with law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants shall be Rs. 20,53,932/- along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 21. 9333X12X17=19,03,932/-. The remaining components need no change as these are in total conformity with law laid down by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680 and thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants shall be Rs. 20,53,932/- along with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 21. In case of Jasvinder, the learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 12,000/- and after making addition of 40% on account of loss of future prospects with deduction of 50% for personal expenses, the loss of monthly dependency has been assessed at Rs. 84,00/-. By applying the multiplier of 16, the total loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 16,12,800/-. 21.1 In this case also, there was no concrete evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Applying the same analogy, the income of the deceased was to be assessed in terms of the Government notification of minimum wages. Assuming the work of deceased to be of skilled workman, his income would not be more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. After making the deduction of 50% for personal expenses it would be Rs. 5000/- per month and by adding 40% of such amount, the loss of monthly dependency would be Rs. 7,000/- and total loss of dependency will be 7000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs. 13,44,000/-.Again, no interference is required as regards the other components of compensation are concerned and thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants in the case of deceased Jasvinder shall be Rs. 14,14,000/-. 22. In the case of Prince Chauhan, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- only has been awarded which by no means can be said to be excessive and thus, no interference is required in the case of Prince Chauhan. 23. The interest shall also be payable to the claimants as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 24. Accordingly, FAO No. 31 of 2023 is dismissed, whereas FAO Nos. 32 and 33 of 2023 are partially allowed. The awards passed by the learned Tribunal in MAC 11- R/2 of 2021 and in MAC 12-R/2 of 2021 are modified to the extent as held above. 25. The appeals are disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 26. Records be sent back forthwith.