R. P. GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against nil award dated 20. 3. 1989 of motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa, whereby the claim of all the appellants who are widow and parents of deceased raju, was rejected. ( 2 ) DECEASED Raju who was a rickshaw puller died in an accident in the night of 3. 9. 1986 at about 9. 30 p. m. near Bhuriya tanki in the area of Bansnagar Colony, rewa, near P. D. S. Crossing. Raju was coming on his cycle-rickshaw and truck no. MPA 8485 driven by Munnalal was coming from the opposite direction, the truck struck against the cycle-rickshaw and Raju was killed. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal declined to award anything on the ground that it was not established that the erring truck was MPA 8485. It may be noticed that this truck was insured with respondent No. 3 and was owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2. ( 4 ) IN order to establish that this was the erring truck the claimants had proved that f. I. R. which was lodged on the night of the incident itself by Jyanendra Shrivastava, AW 5, at 10 p. m. Number of this truck is mentioned in the F. I. R. on the basis of information given to Shrivastava by some boy described by him as Thakur, who according to him had witnessed the incident. The alleged Thakur has not been examined as a witness. Shrivastava supported this fact on oath as AW 5. ( 5 ) THE case set up by the owner and the driver was that this truck had been taken to a place, namely, Shuraghat near Sone river which is about 65 km. away from the spot of accident. Driver Munna appeared in evidence as NAW 2 and narrated that at about 6-7 p. m. he reached Mundaghat where he took meals and then had a punctured wheel of the truck repaired, and then proceeded to Shuraghat. Even before taking his meals he had taken diesel filling at some petrol pump of which the exact location with reference to spot of accident has not been described. Even before taking his meals he had taken diesel filling at some petrol pump of which the exact location with reference to spot of accident has not been described. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal was of the view that since Shrivastava, AW 5, was the only witness about the identity of the truck and his evidence was based on hearsay, it could not be accepted as sufficient evidence to establish identity of the truck which caused the accident, because Thakur on whose information truck number was given, had not been examined. The Tribunal had accepted evidence of Munna that he did not pass the spot of accident at 9. 30 p. m. and that night he had taken sand load at shuraghat near Sone river. This fact that he had taken sand load at morning time and truck loaded with sand started back at 7. 30 a. m. on 4. 9. 1986 was stated by NAW 1 which is the contractor of sand mines. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company, have taken us through the evidence of the witnesses as well as F. I. R. The counsel for the claimants urges that the plea of the truck owner was the plea of alibi and does not exclude the possibility that this truck passed the site of accident that night at about 9. 30 p. m. It is also urged that even if it is based on the information given by another boy, the number of truck was recorded in the f. I. R. There is no allegation that Shrivastava who gave number of this truck was in any manner knowing the identity of this truck as the truck plying in that area and he has no animosity against the truck owner to falsely give the number in the f. I. R. The F. I. R. was instantaneous in so far as it was given within half an hour of accident, so there was no scope for preplanning. So it is argued that the evidence should be accepted, as balance of probability is suggesting that this was the erring truck. ( 8 ) IT may be noticed that in civil cases the burden of proof required is not proof beyond doubt but a preponderance of probabilities. So it is argued that the evidence should be accepted, as balance of probability is suggesting that this was the erring truck. ( 8 ) IT may be noticed that in civil cases the burden of proof required is not proof beyond doubt but a preponderance of probabilities. The question before this court is whether the identity of erring truck recorded in the F. I. R. was false or could be wrong. The F. I. R. had been recorded at 10 p. m. the same night, that is, within hour of the accident. This has not been challenged. No questions were put to Shrivastava that he knew of this truck as to whom it belonged and where it was registered and in which area it was plying. There is no suggestion that this F. I. R. was antetimed and was actually recorded after the truck was apprehended in the day time next morning. So recording of number of this truck as erring truck was instantaneous. Conduct of Shrivastava, AW 5, on the basis of information of a Thakur boy who has not been examined and about whose identity no questions were put in crossexamination. In criminal trials an F. I. R. has no substantive evidentiary value. But in civil cases it has evidentiary value, to suggest balance of probabilities, particularly when it is supported by evidence of another thereof and suggests his instantaneous conduct. Such previous statement is admissible under section 157 of Evidence act also to shift the burden of proof on respondents to establish identity of erring truck. ( 9 ) THIS is a case of hit and run by a truck which is clear from the evidence of, shrivastava. This truck driver and owner have not been able to give specific evidence of receipt of the petrol pump from where diesel was taken that night to show what was the exact location of the petrol pump. In fact it appears from evidence that the truck was certainly nearby the spot of accident while the driver claims that he was taking his meals. The distance of 65 km. is not much distance for a truck to travel. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal had reached its conclusion on wrong understanding of legal position about burden of proof, considering that it continues on the claimants. The distance of 65 km. is not much distance for a truck to travel. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal had reached its conclusion on wrong understanding of legal position about burden of proof, considering that it continues on the claimants. In a case where the accident is caused by a hit and run vehicle, if its number appears in the f. I. R. the vehicle owner and driver have to establish that vehicle was somewhere else and that number was recorded due to some animosity. If the F. I. R. in the case had been recorded the next day or with appreciable gap of time giving scope for planning, the evidential value would have been much less. The probability that this truck was the erring truck is created by the statement of Shrivastava who came to know of this number at the time of accident itself, although from a boy who has not been examined. This preponderance of evidence has not been displaced by the driver or owner of the truck by their evidence. So on consideration of the evidence we are of the view that the erring truck which was involved in the accident was mpa 8485 of which respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were owner and driver and respondent No. 3 was the insurer. ( 11 ) IT is a case of accident caused by a truck. So on the evidentiary presumption raised by rule of res ipsa loquitur, it is clear case of rashness and negligence of the truck driver. It is further confirmed by the fact that the truck was driven away from the scene of accident. We are of clear view that truck No. MPA 8485 was the erring truck. ( 12 ) THE only other question is extent of damages. Since the deceased was a boy of 19 years and rickshaw puller, and according to his father he was earning Rs. 15-20 per day. We will take his income as Rs. 15 per day and he was contributing Rs. 10 to the family, i. e. , Rs. 300 per month and rs. 3,600 per year. It is appropriate to apply multiplier of 15 and it comes to rs. 54,000. To this Rs. 7,000 would be added towards loss of affection, pain and suffering and Rs. 1,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,000 towards damage to rickshaw. The total comes to Rs. 63,000. 300 per month and rs. 3,600 per year. It is appropriate to apply multiplier of 15 and it comes to rs. 54,000. To this Rs. 7,000 would be added towards loss of affection, pain and suffering and Rs. 1,000 towards funeral expenses and Rs. 1,000 towards damage to rickshaw. The total comes to Rs. 63,000. ( 13 ) THUS we award a sum of Rs. 63,000 as compensation to the claimants. Considering the fact that the case has been pending for 12 years it would be appropriate to award interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of claim, i. e. , 21. 10. 1986 till realisation. The insurance company shall deposit the amount within 2 months from the date of supply of certified copy. On deposit the amount shall be disbursed to the claimants. No costs. Appeal allowed. .