JUDGMENT;- Heard. Admit. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The appellant has challenged judgment and award dated 30.12.2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Amravati whereby respondents no.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.4,75,000/- as compensation inclusive of no fault liability (under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act) with interest at the rate of 7.50% per annum from the date of petition till payment. 4. Facts mentioned briefly are, deceased Vijaya, aged about 46 years, wife of claimant no. 1 and mother of claimant no.2 while travelling on 1.6.2002 by an auto no. MH-27C-3602 along with other passengers towards Nandgaon Khandeshwar when auto was by correct side of the road and moderate speed had passed near village Fubgaon. At that time, Jeep bearing no.MHK-8207 owned by M/s. Aparna Associates, Sangli and driven fast by Prashant Pundlikrao Katarkar; insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, gave dash to the auto from behind. Vijay, as a result of accident, suffered serious injuries to her head, legs and on vital parts of body. She became crippled and lost sensation to both legs and could not stand on her legs. She suffered para plagia. She could not recover despite continuous medical treatment and expenditure to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- on her medical treatment excluding transportation and other costs. She ultimately lost her life on 9.11.2006. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs and interest from the owner; driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company; owner and driver of the Jeep denied their liability to pay compensation on various grounds. 5. The Tribunal held rash and negligent driving of Jeep MHK-8207 responsible for the accident and bodily injuries and permanent disability of Vijaya who ultimately died as a result of injuries and awarded compensation, as above. 6. In support of the appeal, appellant Insurer submitted that deceased Vijaya had died long after gap of four years from the date of accident and there was no legal proof that she died because of injuries sustained by her in the accident. According to learned counsel for the appellant, no autopsy was conducted and the doctor did not give any definite opinion as to cause of Vijaya's death. According to learned counsel for the appellant, no autopsy was conducted and the doctor did not give any definite opinion as to cause of Vijaya's death. It is further contended that deceased was asthama patient and the Tribunal passed award on the basis of surmises and conjunctures. It is contended that the claim did not survive in view of Section 306 of the Indian Succession Act as cause of action did not survive to the legal representatives. Learned counsel for appellant also relied upon following rulings: (i) G. M. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Susamma Thomas ( AIR 1994 SC 1631 ) to submit that choice of multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased or that of claimants, whichever is higher. (ii) Skoda Afonso Vs. MACT, Panaji (1996(3) Mh.L.J. 285) to submit where death of claimant during pendency of claim is not on account of injuries suffered in the accident, the cause of action would survive for legal representatives only in so far as loss to the estate is concerned. (iii) Uttam Kumar (deceased) Vs. Madhav and anr. ( 2002 ACJ 1828 ) to argue that if claimant dies during the pendency of claim petition, appeal at the behest of legal representatives does not survive even if the injuries were sustained in the accident. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant opposed the contentions and submitted that a detailed affidavit evidence was tendered about facts as to how the deceased had met with accident and sustained serious injuries which required continuous medical treatment for paraplegia. Deceased Vijaya had also suffered from Thoracic spine D-1, D-2, D-3 fractures. Deponent also gave details of medical treatment and doctors who treated victim for about three and half years who remained bed-ridden all the while and ultimately died despite expensive medical treatment etc. He also deposed about documentary evidence like First Information Report, spot panchanama, medical certificate (exh.69), medical certificates at exhibits 70 to 74, 75, 76, 77 and death certificate at exhibit 79. Nothing material could be elicited from cross-examination of Nilesh. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon observations as to assessment of just compensation in fatal accident by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and anr., (2009)6 SCC 121 : [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)] to ascertain multiplier and ruling in N. R. Patel & Co. Vs. T. Aparna and ors. Learned counsel for respondent relied upon observations as to assessment of just compensation in fatal accident by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. DTC and anr., (2009)6 SCC 121 : [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)] to ascertain multiplier and ruling in N. R. Patel & Co. Vs. T. Aparna and ors. (2006 ACJ 2719) to submit that Insurer cannot get right to defend the claim on grounds beyond Section 149(2) when owner is ex-parte. 8. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and order appears to have considered similar cases and entire evidence i.e. oral and documentary evidence. In a trial before the Tribunal, strict rules of evidence as in a criminal case are not applicable but test of proof is as in summary proceedings or proof in a civil case is upon preponderance of probabilities. Strict proof of FIR, inquest panchanama, post-mortem notes, death certificate is not required as the Act has beneficial and social object to compensate victims of motor vehicle accidents. That being so, no infirmity can be noticed which can dislodge the case of the claimants when over-all effect of evidence led is considered. Evidence of Nilesh (Vijay's son) that victim Vijaya remained bed-ridden due to accidental injuries and that she was medically treated by various doctors and that she was suffering from "paraplegia" i.e. she could not lead normal life after the accident as she had lost sensation to both of her legs and she became completely crippled does indicate that her death was sum effect of her bodily injuries as a result of motor vehicle accident. The contention that driver, owner and insurer of the auto were not impleaded as party, is baseless as the offending motor vehicle was Jeep which had dashed the auto from behind and not the auto. Under these circumstances, the Insurer (appellant) of the Jeep cannot avoid liability in respect of accident caused by the Jeep insured by it. Auto in which deceased travelled was neither offending motor vehicle nor was responsible for the accident which occurred. 9. Lastly. about quantum of compensation. Relying upon Sarla Verma's case [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)] (supra), quantum on account of just compensation would be as under. Victim Vijaya was a house-wife and considering multifarious domestic activities done by a house-wife in and outside home, loss of her income was considered at Rs. 9. Lastly. about quantum of compensation. Relying upon Sarla Verma's case [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)] (supra), quantum on account of just compensation would be as under. Victim Vijaya was a house-wife and considering multifarious domestic activities done by a house-wife in and outside home, loss of her income was considered at Rs. 24,000/- per month which appears to be just and fair under the circumstances. After deduction of one-third as personal expenses, loss of dependency for the claimant was computed at Rs. 24,000/- per annum. Considering age of Vijaya as 48 years at the time of her death. multiplier ," 13" was applied correctly. Thus: Rs. 24,000x13= Rs.3,12,000/- Loss of dependency for expected period of life. Rs. 2,000/- Funeral expenses. Rs. 2,500/- Loss of estate. Rs. 5,000/- Loss of consortium for widower claimant. Rs. 1,36,197/- Medical treatment transportation. Rs.4,57,797/- To the amount of Rs. 4,57,797/-, the compensation amount by way of loss of love and affection, loss of estate and other items, special diet etc. may also be added to award on account of just and fair compensation. Considering all the relevant factors, therefore, and bearing in mind the principles laid down in Sarla Verma’s case [2009(4) ALL MR 429 (S.C.)] (supra), the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears just and fair and no interference is required in the quantum. 10. Hence, appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.