Judgment Both the appeals arise out of common judgment passed by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Parbhani, as those matters were arising out of same accident. 2. The accident had occurred on 15.03.1995 in the morning at about 10.00 a.m. between village Kerwadi and Madrasgaon on Palam to Gangakhed road, within the territorial jurisdiction of Palam police station. On that day, respondent No.2 in both the appeals i.e. original claimants were proceeding by a tempo bearing No.MH-26-7307. About 2 kms from Kerwadi bus stop, when the tempo started overtaking one bullock cart, the tempo turtled to its right side. Said tempo was driven by driver/owner i.e. respondent No.1 Laxman. In the accident, both the claimants suffered injuries. Therefore, they filed their respective claims for compensation as, according to them, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 3. It was also pleaded by them that they were traveling in the milk tempo as respective owners of bags of jowar carried in the tempo and therefore present appellant i.e. original respondent No.1-Insurance Company, which had covered the risk is also liable to pay compensation. 4. Respondent No.1 Laxman i.e. driver/owner of tempo though denied that the accident has occurred due to his rash and negligent driving, admitted that both the claimants were carrying goods i.e. bags of jowar, therefore, according to him the appellant-insurance company is also liable to indemnify him in payment of compensation if awarded by the Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 5. Naturally, the present appellant opposed the petition on all counts. Thereafter, it took a plea of breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance by submitting that both the claimants were traveling in a goods vehicle without any goods and as such being passengers, it is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Before learned Member, the certified copies of F.I.R. and panchanama of spot of occurrence recorded and drawn by police station were pressed into service by the appellant-insurance company. From the side of claimants, they themselves entered into witness box, supported by respondent Laxman driver/owner of the tempo and stated in chorus that the claimants were travelling in said tempo with bags of jowar. 7. Learned Member found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of said Laxman. From the side of claimants, they themselves entered into witness box, supported by respondent Laxman driver/owner of the tempo and stated in chorus that the claimants were travelling in said tempo with bags of jowar. 7. Learned Member found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of said Laxman. Further, both the claimants were traveling in said vehicle as owners of the goods i.e. respective bags of jowar and therefore the appellant was directed to indemnify respondent No.1 Laxman in payment of compensation to them i.e. compensation of Rs. 1,25,200/-in each of the case. 8. Mr. P.P. Bafna, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the learned Member merely took into consideration the interested version of driver/owner of the tempo without any corroboration. According to him, certified copies of the F.I.R. and the panchanama of spot of occurrence would show that no jowar was carried in said tempo. In the circumstances, according to him the findings of learned Member to that extent needs interference and the appeal be allowed to the extent of the liability fastened upon the insurance company. 9. On the other hand Mr. Zarekar and Mr. Sawant, Advocates appearing for the respondents took me through the evidence on record and submitted that the certified copies of the F.I.R. and panchanama are not proved and submitted that in the circumstances of the present case, learned Member was right in coming to the conclusion that both the claimants were traveling as owner of the goods. Therefore, they submit that the appeal be dismissed. 10. On the basis of this material following point arises for my determination. "Whether respondent No.2 in both the appeals i.e. original claimants were traveling as owner of the goods in the tempo at the time of occurrence of the accident? 11. My finding to said point is in the negative. The appeal is, therefore, allowed without any order as to costs for the reasons to follow:- 12. Both the claimants as well as driver/owner of the tempo in their examination-in-chief deposed that the claimants were traveling with 70 -80 kgs. of bags of jowar in said tempo and as such they were respective owners of the respective goods. These are the interested versions of the parties. Therefore, some corroboration was required to their cases. 13. Mr. Zarekar, Advocate for respondent No.2 relied upon Kusum Lata & Others, Vs. of bags of jowar in said tempo and as such they were respective owners of the respective goods. These are the interested versions of the parties. Therefore, some corroboration was required to their cases. 13. Mr. Zarekar, Advocate for respondent No.2 relied upon Kusum Lata & Others, Vs. Satbir & Others, (2011) 3 SCC 646 , wherein the well established principle that the petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, are required to be decided on preponderance of probabilities, is laid down. In the present case, we have to find out as to where the preponderance of probabilities lies. 14. The certified copy of the F.I.R. at Exh. 39 shows that it was filed by Kishan i.e. claimant/petitioner in M.A.C.T. No.109 of 1995. Said F.I.R. is filed on next day i.e. on 16.02.1995 in the hospital. He has reported that he started proceeding by said tempo as he had to recover amount under the bill of milk and therefore he was proceeding to Gangakhed. He stated that while tempo was proceeding forward, other persons including claimant Pandurang also climbed in the tempo and thus tempo had proceeded forward. In this F.I.R, which was filed on the next day of the accident, there is no recital that any of the claimants was carrying any bags of jowar. Copy of panchanama of spot of occurrence at Exh. 40 shows that it was recorded by the official of the police station between 11.30 to 12.30 i.e. about 1-1/2 hours after the actual occurrence. In the panchanama various details as to where iron jack, grease box, milk cans etc. were lying are recorded. However, there is no recital that any jowar was seen scattered on the spot or any bag of jowar was found. 15. Mr. Zarekar, learned Counsel for the original claimants submits that these are merely certified copies of panchanama of spot of occurrence, which appellant was required to produce before learned Member as per laid down procedure. According to him, those were not proved in any manner by the insurance company. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same. 16. It may be noted that before the M.A.C.T. strict rules of admissibility of document as provided under the Indian Evidence Act, are not applicable. According to him, those were not proved in any manner by the insurance company. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same. 16. It may be noted that before the M.A.C.T. strict rules of admissibility of document as provided under the Indian Evidence Act, are not applicable. Kishan i.e. one of the claimants, in cross-examination has, when confronted with certified copy of the F.I.R., merely stated that he did not recollect about the same. In view of this fact, we will have to accept the recitals in the certified copy of panchanama as well as F.I.R. as one of the materials on record. As against this material, there are depositions of the respective claimants and the driver cum owner to buttress their stand that the claimants were traveling with the goods in the tempo i.e. jowar. It should, however, be noted that there is no corroboration at all to their interested version and in that view of the matter, there is no preponderance of probability in their favour. On the other hand, immediately recorded panchanama of the spot of occurrence and F.I.R. filed on the next day by one of the claimants shows absence of any such goods though in the panchanama various minute details are noted. 17. In the case of Kusum Lata (Supra), relied upon by Mr. Zarekar, the Supreme Court has taken into consideration the normal human conduct of the parties involved in the proceedings and found that the appreciation of evidence made by the Tribunal as well as High Court being not satisfactory, ultimately held that though in the F.I.R. number of vehicle and name of the driver is not mentioned, involvement of the vehicle was proved on preponderance of the probabilities. In that case the F.I.R. was filed by the brother of the deceased. He failed to specify registration number of the vehicle and name of driver in the F.I.R. It can well be appreciated that the near relatives of deceased would not be in a condition to recite registration number of the vehicle or name of the driver and in those circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that on preponderance of probabilities, it can be held that the vehicle pleaded to have been involved in the accident was infact involved in the same. On facts, therefore, the authority is not applicable. 18. On facts, therefore, the authority is not applicable. 18. Learned Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal solely took into consideration the statement of the claimants/petitioners and the driver/owner of the vehicle and on the basis of those statements on oath, held that both the claimants were traveling by the goods vehicle with jowar i.e. goods. It, however, did not take into consideration the recitals either in the certified copy of the F.I.R. or panchanama of spot of occurrence. In that view of the matter, the findings of the learned Member to that extent cannot be sustained. 19. Since it has been found on preponderance of probabilities that both the petitioners were not traveling as owner of any goods, the appellant will not be liable to indemnify the driver/owner i.e. respondent No.1 in both the appeals for payment of compensation. Both the appeals, therefore, succeed to that extent without any order as to costs. The award of the learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbhani, is therefore set aside to the extent directing the appellant to pay compensation to the original claimant i.e. respondent No.2. 20. Consequently, the connected Civil Applications stand disposed of.