JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 against the award dated 06.02.2016 passed by the 2 nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar place at Jagdalpur, C.G. in Claim Case No.150/2015, whereby the learned claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition in toto filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the ground that the appellant/claimant failed to prove the involvement of motorcycle No.CG17-KF-6909 in the accident and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant/respondent No.1- Limsar. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 22.12.2013, at about 8:00 pm, deceased- Chameli Bai was returning to her home from village Rampal along with non-applicant No.1 Limsar as a pillion rider on his discover motorcycle bearing registration No.CG17-KF-6909 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle'). However, on way, non-applicant No.1/Limsar drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, pillion rider/deceased fell down from the offending vehicle and died on account of injuries sustained by her. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimant for the death of deceased seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.9,16,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, deceased- Chameli Bai was aged about 24 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural and labour work, the learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence led by both the parties, dismissed the claim petition of the claimant. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the approach of the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition wholly disbelieving the statements of claimant's witnesses, is contrary to law. He would also contend that the police investigation clearly shows respondent No.1 as a driver of the offending vehicle and the charge sheet, seizure of the vehicle, RC book, insurance policy, and driving licence were not disputed by the respondent No.1. He would also submit that even in the written statement, the respondent No.1 admitted the fact of incident, but the Tribunal has erroneously presumed collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1 for getting compensation without any cogent evidence and ignored the material evidence available on record. He would also submit that even in the written statement, the respondent No.1 admitted the fact of incident, but the Tribunal has erroneously presumed collusion between the claimant and respondent No.1 for getting compensation without any cogent evidence and ignored the material evidence available on record. He would also submit that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon discrepancies in the vehicle number due to the errors occurred in police investigation and for that, the claimant had to suffer the consequences of those errors. The record clearly reveals that the correct vehicle was seized and released on Supurdnama to respondent No.1, thereby affirming further its involvement. He would next contend that it is a settled law that proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and must be decided with a liberal approach. However, in the present case, the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical reasoning, failed to decide all issues, and dismissed the claim petition solely on the ground that the appellant/claimant failed to prove the vehicle involved in the accident was offending vehicle and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by non-applicant/respondent No.1- Limsar, which is not inconsonance with the well established principles of law. Therefore, it is respectfully urged that the impugned award be set aside and the appeal be allowed by awarding just and proper compensation. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Geeta Dubey and others vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3779 and Janabai, Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and Ors vs M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Ltd. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 666. 5. Counsel for the respondent No.1-Limsar would submit that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.1A is the owner of the offending vehicle. He would further submit that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and the same is evident from the document Ex.NA-8 (extract of driving licence). It is also submitted that the offending vehicle was also released on Supurdnama to respondent No.1 by the concerned Court. Therefore, in case of liability being fastened, the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 would be liable to indemnify the same to the claimant. 6. It is also submitted that the offending vehicle was also released on Supurdnama to respondent No.1 by the concerned Court. Therefore, in case of liability being fastened, the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 would be liable to indemnify the same to the claimant. 6. Counsel for the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 would submit that though the offending vehicle was insured under package policy with the Insurance Company on the date of accident, but there is no specific evidence available on record to show the involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident. Therefore, the learned claims Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant, which needs no interference by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant? 9. As per the claim petition, the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. The claim petition was resisted by the respective respondents. Before the learned Claims Tribunal, non- applicant No.1-Limsar, by filing written statement, denied that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and further pleaded that a bull suddenly appeared near turn on the road, due to which, he applied brakes and deceased herself jumped off the offending vehicle and sustained injuries, therefore, deceased herself was negligent. In his written statement, he specifically pleaded at para 4 that if this Court finds that the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, then respondent No.2/Insurance Company should be held liable to indemnify the compensation as the entire risk was covered under the package policy and the applicable premium was duly received by the Insurance Company. 10. Non-applicant No.1(A)- Bharat Sethiya, by filing written statement, denied the averments made in the claim petition, however, he has specifically pleaded that he is the owner of the offending vehicle which was insured with the non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company from 30.10.2013 to 29.10.2014 and in case, if any liability is fastened, the same would be upon the Insurance Company as the offending vehicle was insured with it on the date of accident. 11. Insurance Company (NA-2) has also filed its written statement and denied that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle and the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. 11. Insurance Company (NA-2) has also filed its written statement and denied that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle and the claimant is not entitled for any compensation. The Insurance Company has amended its written statement and additional ground was taken at para 8 wherein Insurance Company categorically pleaded that the offending vehicle was registered in the name of respondent No.1A Bharat Sethiya, therefore, he was a necessary party in the claim petition. It was further specifically pleaded that the offending vehicle was not insured with it. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled to get any compensation from it. 12. NAW-1 D.D. Verma, examined on behalf of non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company, specifically admitted in his cross-examination at para 6 that both the motorcycles bearing registration No. CG17-KF-6909 and CG17-KF- 6910 owned by non-applicant No.1 Limser Baghel and non-applicant No.1A Bharat Sethiya respectively were insured with non-applicant No.2/Insurance Company. It is also admitted by him that insurance policies (Exs.NA-1 & NA-9) are package policies. Furthermore, perusal of Exs.NA-7 and NA-8 (extract of vehicle particulars) would reveal that motorcycle bearing registration No.CG17-KF-6910 was owned by non-applicant No.1- Limsar and he was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, whereas Ex.NA-1 (vehicle particulars) would indicate that motorcycle bearing registration No.CG17-KF-6909 was registered in favour of non-applicant No.1A-Bharat Sethiya. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Geeta Dubey (supra) has held in paras 19 & 20 which read as under:- “19.Except for a bare assertion that the vehicle has been wrongly involved, the insurance company which has setup a plea of collusion has done nothing to make good its case. We find that the judgment of the High Court is wholly untenable. We say so for the following reasons. 20. Firstly, it is well settled that in claim cases, in case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See Sajeena Ikhbal and Others, V. Mini Babu George and Others, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it appropriate to extract the following paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi & Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530 . [See Sajeena Ikhbal and Others, V. Mini Babu George and Others, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2883]. We also deem it appropriate to extract the following paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Bimla Devi & Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530 . Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question, this Court held as follows: “14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3. 15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that 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.” 14. Likewise, the Supreme Court in the matter of Janabai (supra) has held in para 10 which reads as under:- “10. We find that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No. 1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable. 15. Having considered the pleadings, it appears that the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.1A-Bharat Sethiya, whereas it was being driven by non-applicant No.-1-Limsar on the date of incident. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that AW-1 Tularam/claimant, who was eye-witness to the accident, has stated that due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, the offending vehicle met with accident and his wife/deceased, who was sitting as a pillion rider, has died. He has also stated that at the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural and labour work. In support of his evidence, he has filed merg intimation (Ex.A-1), FIR (Ex.A-2), spot map (Ex.A-3), PM report (Ex.A-4), seizure memos (Exs.A-5 & A-6) and final report (Ex.NA-6). Merg Intimation shows that it was registered at Police Station Nagarnar where it is specifically mentioned that on 22.12.2013 at about 9:00 pm, deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1-Limsar, FIR (Ex.P-2) would also reveal that it was registered against the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC and seizure memos (Exs.A-5 & A-6) would also show that RC book, registration certificate of offending vehicle, insurance policy and other documents were seized from the non-applicant No.1-Limsar during investigation. Furthermore, NA-6 final report submitted by Police Station Nagarnar before the JMFC, Jagdalpur would also reveal that it was filed against non-applicant No.1 Limsar stating therein that offending vehicle was being driven by him in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, deceased fell down and succumbed to the injuries. This apart, NAW-2 Limsar also admitted in his cross-examination that he has obtained the offending vehicle on Supurdnama from the Court of JMFC, Jagdalpur. He also admitted that with respect to present accident, Nagarnar Police Station has registered a criminal case against him and charge-sheet has also been filed. This apart, NAW-2 Limsar also admitted in his cross-examination that he has obtained the offending vehicle on Supurdnama from the Court of JMFC, Jagdalpur. He also admitted that with respect to present accident, Nagarnar Police Station has registered a criminal case against him and charge-sheet has also been filed. Besides above, NAW-3 Dalip Thakur, Investigating Officer produced on behalf of Insurance Company, also admitted that during investigation, he found the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. This witness was also examined as Court witness wherein he has stated that after obtaining case diary, he found that copy of RC book belonged to motorcycle bearing registration No.CG17-KF-6910 was annexed. He also admitted that he did not investigate with respect to RC book of both the motorcycles (CG17-KF-6909 & CG17-KF-6910) belonged to respondent No.1. 17. Apart from the above, owner of the offending vehicle/non-applicant No.1A-Bharat Sethiya has also not been examined himself to prove that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. Though in the impugned award, the learned claims Tribunal, in para 30, has recorded a finding that the offending vehicle, owned by respondent No.1, was not involved in the said accident, but the overall evidence coupled with pleadings of the parties would clearly reveal that the offending vehicle (motorcycle No.CG17- KF6909), owned by respondent No.1A-Bharat Sethiya, was involved in the accident and the same being driven by respondent No.1-Limsar in a rash and negligent manner on the date of accident, resulting into, death of deceased. 18. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranjeet & Anr. Vs Abdul Kayam Neb & Anr. in Civil Appeal which arises out of SLP(C) No.10351/2019 vide order dated 25.02.2025 has held in para 4 which reads as under:- “4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 19. Even if the eyewitnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.” 19. Returning to the facts of the present case in the light of aforesaid decisions of Supreme Court, it is quite vivid from the overall evidence available on record that NA-1A-Bharat Sethiya is the registered owner of the offending vehicle and at that time of accident, NA-1/respondent No.1- Limsar drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the finding recorded by the claims Tribunal holding that offending vehicle was not involved in the said accident is an erroneous finding and the same is hereby set aside. It is held that non-applicant No.1/respondent No.1- Limsar is liable for causing the accident. 20. As regards assessment of compensation, claimant/AW-1 Tularam in the claim petition as well as in his statement pleaded and deposed that at the time of accident, his wife/deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing agricultural and labour work. Thus, considering the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2013, the pleading and statement of AW-1 Tularam with respect to the income of the deceased, the nature of work of deceased and also considering the minimum wages provisions for the unskilled labour which was more than Rs.5,000/- at the prevalent time, I, therefore, propose to reassess the compensation by taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. 21. That apart, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 has considered 40% towards loss of future prospects for the self-employed persons who are below 40 years. Therefore, in the present case, looking to the age of the deceased i.e. 30 years as mentioned in the postmortem report (Ex.A-4), the applicable percentage towards future prospects would be 40%. Likewise, in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26 to 30 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased being 30 years, the applicable multiplier would be 17. Likewise, in the matter of Smt. Sarla Verma and others VS. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the Supreme Court has prescribed the multiplier of 17 for the age group between 26 to 30 years. Therefore, in the instant case, looking to the age of the deceased being 30 years, the applicable multiplier would be 17. Further, taking the guidance from the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi (supra) & Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 , this Court recomputes the compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. Heads Calculation (in rupees) 01. Income of the deceased @ Rs.5,000/- per month Rs.60,000/- per annum 02. 40% of (i) above to be added towards future prospects. Rs.24,000/- Rs.60,000/- + Rs.24,000/-= Rs.84,000/- 03. Multiplier of 17 to be applied Rs.84,000/- x 17 Rs.14,28,000/- 04. 1/2 deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased Rs.7,14,000/- 05. Towards loss of estate and funeral expenses Rs.30,000/- 06. Towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- Total Compensation Rs.7,84,000/- 22. In this way, the claimant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.7,84,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its realization. 23. Considering the fact that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 under a valid package policy as is evident from the Insurance Policy (Ex.NA-1) and statement of NAW-1 D.D. Verma, Branch Manager of Insurance Company/non-applicant No.2 and further the Insurance Company could not prove any breach of policy conditions by the driver of the offending vehicle/respondent No.1 at the time of accident, this Court is of the opinion that the liability to pay compensation lies upon respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Accordingly, Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to pay the awarded amount of compensation to the claimant within a period of two months from the date of this judgment. 24. As regards the disbursement of the awarded amount, it is directed that the amount of compensation payable to the claimant and the amount to be kept in a nationalized bank in fixed deposit as well as the period thereof, shall be determined by the concerned Claims Tribunal. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award passed by the learned claims Tribunal is set aside.