The court established that in compensation claims, the burden of proof is based on preponderance of probability, and interest cannot be awarded on future prospects.

JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

This is an appeal filed by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter called as "Insurance Company")/appellant under section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") challenging the judgment and award dated 06.08.2016 made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnore in M.A.C.T. Case No. 88 of 2023 (Smt. Seema Devi and others v. Shehnawaz Chaudhary and others).

2. Facts, leading to present appeal, are that one Rakesh Kumar who was employed as Police Constable in U.P. Police was returning home after his duty on 13.06.2012, when he was hit by an offending bus (U.P. 15 AT 9224) resulting into his severe injuries. He was admitted in Noorpur Hospital, where his condition deteriorated and was referred to District Hospital, Bijnore. He was, thereafter, taken to District Government Hospital, Agra for treatment and unfortunately died on 29.08.2012. At the time of his death, he was 36 years of age and was getting a salary of approximately Rs. 22,000/- per month. The deceased was survived by his widow, Seema Devi and his two daughters Khushi, 7 years of age and Gungun, 5 years of age, and widowed mother.

3. A claim petition was filed at Bijnore seeking a compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,15,19,000/- along with interest. The claim petition was contested by owner of the vehicle and driver as well as the Insurance Company who filed their written statement denying of any accident having been taken place. The trial court on 19.07.2013 framed the following five issues:-

^^1&D;k fnukad 13&06&2012 dks le; 5 cts 'kke LFkku fcutkSj&uwjiqj jksM vUrxZr Fkkuk uwjiqj esa cl la[;k ;wih0 15 ,0Vh0&9224 ds pkyd }kjk cl dks rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrs gq, jkds'k dqekj dh eksVjlkbZfdy esa VDdj ekj nh] ftles vkbZ xEHkhj pksVks ds dkj.k jkds'k dqekj dh e`R;q gks xbZ\

2& D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk Lo;a e`rd dh ;ksxnkbZ mis{kk dk ifj.kke gS] ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\

3& D;k nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ,oa le; dfFkr cl la[;k ;wih0&15 ,0Vh0&9224 ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k o izHkkoh M~kbfoax ykbZlsUl Fkk\

4& D;k nq?kZVuk dh fnukad ,oa le; dfFkr cl ;wih0&15 ,0Vh0&9224 foi{kh la[;k 2 chek dEiuh }kjk chfer Fkh\

5& D;k ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdj jkf'k ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSa ;fn gkWa rks fdruh vkSj fdlls\**

4. The claimant filed various documentary evidences and she appeared before the Tribunal as PW-1 while the witnesses Mahesh and Aadil Sarjil appeared as PW-2 and PW-3. While no one was deposed before the court below on behalf of defendants.

5. The trial court while deciding issue no. 1 and 2 together found that accident was caused by offending bus on 13.06.2012 due to which Rakesh Kumar sustained injuries and ultimately died. While deciding issue no. 5, the court below awarded the compensation at Rs. 36,58,560/- along with 7% interest from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. Against the aforesaid award, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

6. On 01.12.2016, appellant was directed to deposit the entire amount. Against the said order, the appellant preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 5727 of 2021. In the meantime, Insurance Company deposited the entire amount before the Tribunal on 02.08.2017, amounting to Rs. 45,75,254/-. The order of this Court was stayed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 04.10.2017. On 16.09.2021, the appeal preferred by Insurance Company was disposed of with a direction to decide the appeal on merits.

7. Sri. Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that G.D. Entry No. 54 reflects that deceased was found in unconscious stage without any reference of any motor vehicle accident. According to him, the accident is dated 13.06.2012 while Rakesh Kumar died on 29.08.2012 but letter from hospital reflect that accident took place with unknown vehicle. He further submitted that letter to D.M. for post mortem written by brother of deceased also reflects that dec