Delay in lodging F.I.R. cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. The claimants are not required to prove the case as in a criminal trial and are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The future prospect of the deceased should be considered while determining the income for the purpose of assessing the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and the same has been preferred against an award dated August 28, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Asansol,-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in M.A.C. Case No. 07 of 2013 where by the claimants got an award of Rs. 29,90,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the Insurance Company.

2. The claimants being the respondents in the instant appeal filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 praying for compensation on account of death of one Rakesh Bind who met with an accident on October 26, 2011 on N.H.2 near the main gate of D.S.P., Durgapur. It was alleged in the said claim petition that when the victim was going towards Durgapur Bhiringi side from Durgapur main gate, near the main gate, a Bolero vehicle being No. WB-38 U/9695 (hereinafter referred to as "the offending vehicle") dashed him as a result of which he sustained severe injuries on his person. The local people shifted him to Mission Hospital Durgapur, but the Doctor of the said Hospital declared him dead. The death occurred due to the accident which took place as a result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The victim was aged about 39 years at the time of the accident and used to work at Food Corporation of India Durgapur. At the relevant point of time, the deceased used to earn Rs. 38,000/- per month.

3. The owner of the offending vehicle who was impleaded as the Opposite party No. 1, after entering appearance in the said proceeding, filed his written statement denying the material allegations contained in the claim petition but did not participate in the said proceeding any further. As a result, the case was heard ex parte against him.

4. The Insurance Company was impleaded as Opposite No.2 in the said proceeding and contested the same by filing a written statement denying the material allegations contained in the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. The learned Judge of the court below by an award dated August 28, 2015 allowed the Motor Accident Claim case upon holding that the Opposite Party Nos. 1and 2 in the claim petition are jointly and severally liable to pay the total compensation amount awarded. The claimants got an award of Rs. 29,90,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the said compensation amount together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application to the claimants within two months from the date of the award, in default, the awarded amount shall carry further interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the order till realisation.

6. Mr. Rajesh Singh, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/appellant herein assailed the award dated August 28, 2015 on the following points:

(1) Non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the instant case due to the delay in lodging of F.I.R..

(2) Treating incentive as a part of salary while assessing the amount of just compensation is unjustified.

(3) The evidence of the PW 1 who is one of the claimants is not trustworthy as she could not state the number of the alleged offending vehicle during her cross-examination.

(4) The evidence of the eye-witnesses is also not trustworthy. The claimants/respondent herein have filed a cross-objection in connection with the said appeal on the ground that the learned court below while assessing the compensation did not take into consideration the future prospect of the deceased.

7. Mr. Singh, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the accident took place on October 26, 2011 and the F.I.R. was lodged on January 12, 2012 as such there has been a delay of about 77 days in lodging the F.I.R. from the date of the accident. He further submits that the eye-witness was not a listed wi