Hon'ble LALA, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called as the Corporation) against the claimants i.e. family members of the deceased died in a road accident. By preferring the appeal the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2009 passed by concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad. 2. The awarded amount is Rs. 2,51,800/- along with interest etc., which will be paid to the claimants proportionately pursuant to the direction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 3. The Corporation has raised various points before this Court. The vehicle was not involved in the accident. No adverse inference can be drawn against the appellant only on the ground of submission of charge sheet against the appellant/its driver. No adverse inference can be drawn against the testimony of the eye witness. The Tribunal has wrongly and illegally accepted testimony of the witness on the part of the claimants. It has been wrongly recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant did not produce any witness to contradict the claim of the claimants. Burden of proof regarding the income in fact lies with the claimants. Presumption of monthly income of Rs. 1,800/-, in absence of documentary evidence, is wrongful. The First Information Report had been lodged on 01st June, 2003, when the alleged accident took place on 25th May, 2003 but not immediately. The Tribunal has wrongly applied multiplier of 17 in absence of any documentary proof regarding the age of the deceased. The awarded amount is Rs. 2,51,800/-, which is highly excessive and without any justification. The Tribunal has awarded the amount in favour of the claimants on the realm of surmises and conjectures. 4. Sri Vivek Saran, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has cited a judgment reported in (2003) 7 SCC 291 = RLW 2003(4) SC 551 (State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani and another) to establish that many things mentioned in the site plan have been noted by the Investigating Officer on the basis of the statements given by the witnesses will be clearly hit by Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 because that was based on statements of several witnesses not of his own. Therefore, what the Investigating Officer saw and noted alone would be admissible. 5. Therefore, what the Investigating Officer saw and noted alone would be admissible. 5. We are of the view that firstly such judgment is arising out of the Criminal Procedure Code not under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the Criminal cases evidences have to be evalued up to the hilt unlike in the motor accident cases which have to be evalued on the basis of natural eventualities. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal proceeds on the summary manner. It is a beneficial piece of legislation to award the claimant/s monetary compensation unlike the criminal cases where the actual evidential value given lot of difference between acquittal or conviction. Moreover “crime” and “Accident” are distinct and different. Therefore, mind set of investigation of crime and mind set of investigation of accident of the police is also different. In the cases of road accidents normally people assemble at the spot and give various pictures to the police when they visit such place. Police act upon various such statements as well as independently. It is dependant upon the situation whether the police has prepared the sketch map of the spot independently or on the basis of the informations received from the people. Such piece of evidence may be the statement of witness or witnesses but when taking into account various materials by an Investigating Officer and formed an opinion by way of report and filed before the concerned magistrate under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code it will be pre-supposed that the police has acted out of his own accord. The report is based on the prima facie satisfaction of the police, therefore, once the sketch map became part of the report, the proceeding under Section 162 of the Code merges with the report to be filed before the concerned magistrate for his consideration. Therefore, the tribunal or court under the jurisdiction of Motor Accidents Claim cases, can not ignore such piece of evidence to come to a conclusion. Moreover, law of evidence always gives credence to the independent witnesses. For every likelihood, police will be treated to be an independent witness in respect of such type of disputes between driver/owner/insurer in one hand and the claimant/s on the other hand. Factual aspect of the Supreme Court judgment, as referred hereunder, is totally inapplicable in the case. Moreover, law of evidence always gives credence to the independent witnesses. For every likelihood, police will be treated to be an independent witness in respect of such type of disputes between driver/owner/insurer in one hand and the claimant/s on the other hand. Factual aspect of the Supreme Court judgment, as referred hereunder, is totally inapplicable in the case. There the High Court extensively relied upon the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer for discarding the prosecution case but here there was no such case before the tribunal. Factually, the site plan categorically shows how the driver of the vehicle of the corporation disobeyed the traffic rules and caused accident. The driver did not appear to confront such evidence. 6. Two witnesses were examined i.e. the wife of the deceased Smt. Noor Jahan and Abdul Hamid, the eye witness, First Information Report and other neces ary documents were produced by the police. The driver was not produced to contradict the cause or non-involvement of the vehicle. The appellant has only tried to make out the case on the stray evidence of the eye witness that he reached on the spot after a period of five minutes. According to us, evidence of the eye witness can not be taken in isolation. The total evidence of the eye witness is to be taken into account to come to an appropriate conclusion. The place of accident was identified. The person who met with accident was identified. But the witness never said that he had identified the number of the vehicle on the spot from the far but stated that the driver fled away with the vehicle and caught somewhere else at a distance from the place of accident. Such fact must have been corroborated by other evidences in the Tribunal. From the common knowledge we see that many persons use numericals to identify time or distance. Such stray statement can not demolish the entire case. 7. Secondly, the question of quantum, which allegedly said to be Rs. 3,000/- per month, has been raised. But the Tribunal did not accept such amount though it is almost well settled by now that in many of the accident cases, the Supreme Court or the High Courts fix the sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month, as minimum income, in absence of appropriate evidence in this regard. Therefore, when Rs. 3,000/- per month, has been raised. But the Tribunal did not accept such amount though it is almost well settled by now that in many of the accident cases, the Supreme Court or the High Courts fix the sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month, as minimum income, in absence of appropriate evidence in this regard. Therefore, when Rs. 1,800/- is fixed by the Tribunal as monthly income, the same can not be said to be on the higher side. 8. So far as the deduction is concerned, multiplier of 17 has been applied in the case of the claimants on the basis of the age of the deceased. Though the claimants were not in a position to produce any document with regard to age of the deceased but the Tribunal has come to a conclusion on the basis of the post mortem report. Possibly, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is encouraged with the various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in respect of the applicability of lower multiplier in several cases but those are based on factual aspects therein. According to us, principle of second Schedule of Section 163-A of the Act can not be said to be ignorable guideline to come to a conclusion by applying appropriate multiplier even in the cases of 'just compensation' under Section 166 of the Act. See three Judges' Bench judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2002(3) T.A.C. 378 (S.C.) (Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Co. Limited and another). 9. Therefore, in totality the appeal is liable to be dismissed and according dismissed even at the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost. 10. Incidentally, the appellant-insurance company prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust the same with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed.