Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order dated 30.6.2005 made in MCOP.No.1157/2003 by the learned District Judge (MACT) Tiruvannamalai, dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The Appellants/ claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Velankanni, who died in the motor accident that had occurred on 13.7.2003 at about 5 p.m., have filed the claim petition against the the Respondent/the Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department, Tiruvannamalai, claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. According to the claimants, on 13.7.2003 at about 5.00 p.m. the deceased and two others were proceeding in a Hero Honda Motorcycle on the Tiruvannamalai-Vellore Road and when the motorcycle was proceeding in front of Beggars Rehabilitation Home, the Trax Jeep bearing Reg.No.TN025-G-0033 belonging to the Respondent coming from Vellore towards Tiruvannamalai in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which the deceased Velankanni sustained head injuries and died on the way to Hospital. According to the claimants, the driver of the Trax Jeep, namely, R.Baskaran drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident, on account of which, the deceased suffered fatal injuries. 3. The Respondent contested the claim petition contending that.the driver of the Trax Jeep was driving the same with due care and caution on the left side of the road and the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle carrying three persons at the time of the accident. According to the Respondent, the Hero Honda Motorcycle dashed against the right side of the Trax Jeep in the process of overtaking the bus which was going ahead of it. 4. In the claim petition, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW.1 and one eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1. The Tribunal held that claimants had not proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the Trax Jeep and consequently, dismissed the claim petition. 5. 4. In the claim petition, the 1st claimant examined herself as PW.1 and one eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2. The driver of the offending vehicle was examined as RW.1. The Tribunal held that claimants had not proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the Trax Jeep and consequently, dismissed the claim petition. 5. Mr.S.Kumaradevan, the learned counsel for the Appellants assailed the judgement on the following grounds:- (a) The finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is contrary to the evidence placed on record. (b) The Tribunal ought to have placed implicit reliance upon the findings of the eye witness to the accident PW.2 , whose evidence remained unassailed even after the detailed cross examination. (c) The claimants have discharged the burden of proving that the driver of the Trax Jeep was driving the same in a rash and negligent manner. 6. The learned counsel for the Appellants placed reliance on the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 2.3.2011 made in Civil Appeal No.2269/2001 (Kusum Lata and others Vs. Satbir and others) to substantiate his contention that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The learned counsel would further submit that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5 lakhs as claimed by them in the claim petition. 7. On the other hand, Mrs.Saraswathi Sivarama Iyer, the Special Government Pleader for the Respondent supported the impugned order in all respects. 8. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 9. In order to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent in driving, the claimants have examined the eye witnesses to the accident as PW.2 and marked Ex.P1 First Information Report, Ex.P3 report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The First Information Report has been registered on the complaint given by one Vijayakumar, who is one of the injured person in the accident. In the complaint, it is averred that he was riding the motorcycle with the deceased and another person as a pillion rider and was proceeding carefully on the left side of the road. The First Information Report has been registered on the complaint given by one Vijayakumar, who is one of the injured person in the accident. In the complaint, it is averred that he was riding the motorcycle with the deceased and another person as a pillion rider and was proceeding carefully on the left side of the road. When they were proceeding near Beggars Rehabilitation Home, the Trax Jeep was driven in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and hit against the front portion of the motorcycle, as a result of which, all the three persons fell down and sustained grievous injuries. It is further averred that he lost consciousness and regained consciousness only in the hospital and later he came to know that the deceased Velankanni succumbed to the injuries in the Hospital. 10. The averments made in the First Information Report, which is given at the earliest possible time, indicated that the driver of the offending vehicle has driven the Jeep in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the front portion of the motorcycle. PW.2, who claimed to have witnessed the accident, has stated in his evidence that he saw the motorcycle coming from the direction of Tiruvannamalai to Vellore and was hit by a Trax Jeep which was coming in the opposite direction. He further stated that the jeep driver was negligent in driving the vehicle, but for his negligence, the accident would not have happened. In the course of the cross-examination, he has explained that he happened to be in the place of accident for grazing the cattle. His examination clearly indicated that the front portion of the motorcycle was hit by the offending vehicle Trax Jeep. He has denied the suggestion that negligence was on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Though he has not specifically stated about the speed at which the jeep was driven, but however, his evidence clearly indicated that but for negligent driving of the driver of the jeep, the accident would not have happened. 11. It is no doubt true that in order to succeed in a claim petition, the claimant has to establish rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 11. It is no doubt true that in order to succeed in a claim petition, the claimant has to establish rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. In this case, the Tribunal has rejected the evidence of PW.2 on the ground that he has not stated the name of the rider and the pillion rider of the motorcycle and regarding the ownership of the Trax Jeep. 12. It is pertinent to point out to the evidence of RW.1 the driver of the offending vehicle. He has merely stated that the motorcycle in the process of overtaking another bus dashed against the jeep on the right side of the jeep. Admittedly, he has not given any report to the Police. He has admitted in his cross-examination that a criminal case was registered against him and still it is pending. I am, at a loss, to find as to why the Tribunal has ignored the otherwise reliable evidence of PW.2. The evidence placed on record, more particularly, the First Information Report lodged by the rider of the motorcycle who is also an injured person in the accident clearly showed that the driver of the Trax Jeep came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. There is no material whatsoever placed to indicate that three persons travelling in the motorcycle had contributed to the negligence. It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. 13. In the case of Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport (2009-ACJ-1725-SC) the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the claimants have to establish their case merely on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied in respect of the claimants who are not present on the spot. 14. In the case of NKV.Bros (P) Limited Vs. M.Karumai Ammal (1980-ACJ-435-SC) , the Honourable Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there and save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. M.Karumai Ammal (1980-ACJ-435-SC) , the Honourable Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there and save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. It is further held that the court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. In my considered opinion, the ratio of all these authorities is attracted to the present case and the claimants have proved negligence on the part of the driver of the Trax Jeep owned by the Respondent and the findings of the Tribunal rejecting the evidence of the eye witness PW.2 without any proper reason is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 15. In view of the reasons stated above, I hold that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Trax Jeep belonging to the Respondent. 16. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was working in a Hotel as a Thandoori Master. It is claimed that he was earning Rs.5000/- p.m., but however, there is no evidence to prove the income of the deceased. Even in the First Information Report, there is an averment to the effect that the deceased was working as a Thandoori Master in a Hotel at the time of the accident. As a Thandoori Master, the deceased would have earned not less than Rs.3000/-per month. He would have spent 1/3rd towards his personal expenses. After deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, the loss of annual dependency would come to Rs.24,000/-. Considering the age of the deceased, who was aged 28 years at the time of the accident, it would be appropriate to apply 17 as multiplier. By applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of dependency would come to Rs.4,08,000/-. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.20,000/-for the loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/- for the loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses are awarded. In all, a sum of Rs.4,63,000/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization is awarded to the claimants. 17. In addition to that, a sum of Rs.20,000/-for the loss of consortium, Rs.30,000/- for the loss of love and affection and Rs.5000/-for funeral expenses are awarded. In all, a sum of Rs.4,63,000/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization is awarded to the claimants. 17. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. In all, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,63,000/-(Rupees four lakhs sixty three thousand only) with interest 7.5% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The Respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the claimants 1 to 4 are entitled to Rs.1,63,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/- Rs.75,000/- and Rs.75,000/-respectively. The claimants 1, 3 and 4 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with proportionate interest. The share of the minor 2nd claimant shall be invested in any one of the Nationalized Banks till he attains majority. The 1st claimant is entitled to withdraw the interest from the deposit of the share of the minor 2nd claimant once in three months. No costs.