JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The appellant-insurance company has filed this appeal assailing the judgment dated 30-3-2012 passed by the learned 5th M.A.C.T. Khurda in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 2 of 2008 awarding compensation of Rs. 3,84,500/- with simple interest @ 6% pendent lite and future from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 21-2-2008 till the date of actual payment. The epitome of the facts, in short, is that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court below claiming for compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- on account of death of Tuna @ Ananta Baral in a vehicular accident. It is stated that on 26-12-2007 at about 5.30 a.m. while the deceased was proceeding towards Niarakarpur Railway Station from Padampur by walking on the left side morrum flank of the road at Railway gate which consents to Jagannath Road, the offending tractor bearing registration No. O.R. 25-A-1079 and O.R.-25-A-1080 (Tractor and Trolley) came from Rameswar side facing towards Lendu side, i.e., from behind the deceased in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the deceased, as a result, the deceased sustained severe injuries all over his body. Immediately after the accident, the local people took the deceased to District Head Quarters Hospital, Khurda and thereafter he was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and was admitted as an indoor patient to Neuro Surgery Department of S.C.B. Medical Cuttack where he succumbed to injuries on 28-12-2007. Thereafter, Mangalabag Police Station registered a case bearing U.D. Case No. 1281 dated 28-12-2007 and the post-mortem examination was conducted on 29-12-2007. The informant Bijay Kumar Paikray, who was working as a Police Constable at Nirakarpur Out Post lodged the F.I.R. that while he was performing his duty, the offending vehicle came from Rameswar side in a most high speed and near Nirakarpur Railway gate dashed against the deceased, therefore the deceased sustained bodily injuries, which ultimately led to his death. Accordingly, Jankia Police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet in G.R. Case No. 1344 of 2007 under Sections 279/ 338/ 304-A. I.P.C. against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is stated that the deceased Tuna @ Ananta Baral was about 20 years of age being a bachelor and working as a mason and getting Rs. Accordingly, Jankia Police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet in G.R. Case No. 1344 of 2007 under Sections 279/ 338/ 304-A. I.P.C. against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is stated that the deceased Tuna @ Ananta Baral was about 20 years of age being a bachelor and working as a mason and getting Rs. 3600/- per month out of which he was contributing Rs. 2000/- per month for the maintenance of his father and sister. It is further stated that the deceased was the only son of respondent No. 1 and was maintaining the family. Accordingly, they claimed compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- alongwith interest. 2. Pursuant to the notice, respondent No. 6, the owner of the vehicle, who was opposite party No. 1 in the Court below, entered appearance and filed written statement, but did not choose to contest the claim proceeding when the same was taken up for hearing. Therefore, he was set ex parte. The present appellant-insurance company, being opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed written statement and contested the claim of the claimants-respondents. It is specifically stated in the written statement that at the material time of accident the deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle by sitting near the driver seat and on the way he suddenly fell down at the railway gate and was run over by the wheel of the tractor. It was further pleaded that the tractor and trolley was insured under a "Farmer's Package Policy" and except the driver no other persons were covered under the policy of insurance issued by it and as per the sitting capacity 'one' has been mentioned in the R.C. Book of the alleged offending tractor trailer and except the driver no other person was permitted to sit in the said vehicle. It is further stated that though the offending vehicle was insured under the 'farmer's package policy' exclusively to be used for agricultural purpose but at the material time of accident, the same was transporting metals in gross violation of the policy condition. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation for death of the deceased. 3. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. The claimants examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and exhibited documents marked as Exts. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to any compensation for death of the deceased. 3. On consideration of the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues. The claimants examined two witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and exhibited documents marked as Exts. 1 to 5 whereas insurance company examined one witness as O.P.W. 1 and relied upon the documents marked a Exts. A to F. 4. On consideration of the materials available on record, the learned Tribunal has come to a definite finding that on 26-12-2007 at about 5.30 p.m. the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and in such accident Tuna @ Ananta Baral had died and accordingly compensation has been determined at Rs. 3,84,500/- which shall carry simple interest @ 6% pendent lite and future from the date of filing of petition, i.e., 21-2-2008 till the date of actual payment. However, the learned Tribunal granted liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, if it is recoverable in accordance with law. Assailing the said judgment, appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Adam Ali Khan, learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company strenuously urged that the insurance company is not liable to pay the awarded amount and as such the determination of compensation made by the learned Court below is absolutely based on erroneous calculation. Therefore, he seeks for setting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Court below. To substantiate his contention, he relies upon judgments in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Premalata Shukla and others 2007 (56) AIC 124 (SC) : 2007 (3) TAC 11 (SC) : 2007 (4) SCJ 500 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, ;National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbayamma and others 2005 (2) TAC 1 (SC); Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . 6. Mr. P.C. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-respondent Nos. Ltd. Vs. Asha Rani and Others, ;National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bommithi Subbayamma and others 2005 (2) TAC 1 (SC); Syed Basheer Ahamed and Others Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Another, and Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, . 6. Mr. P.C. Pattnaik, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 5 refuted the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company and stated that there is eyewitness to the occurrence, namely, Manoj Mandhata and on the evidence adduced by the eye-witness, the learned Court below has come to a conclusion that the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 are entitled to get compensation. Therefore, no illegality and irregularity has been committed by the learned Court below for coming to such conclusion. He further submits that the evidence of eye-witness has to be given priority over the F.I.R. and as the F.I.R. and charge-sheet are not substantive piece of evidence, the determination of compensation having been made in consonance with the provision of law, this Court may not interfere with the same. To substantiate his contention he reliefs upon the judgments in 970715--> . The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bhaiga Pradhan and Others, ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Lata Rout and Others, and Mataji Bewa and Others Vs. Hemanta Kumar Jena and Another. So far as determination of compensation amount is concerned, he relies upon the judgments in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer and another 2004 (13) AIC 472 (SC) : 2004 (1) TAC 3 (SC), MG. Dir., Bangalore Metropolitan Tpt. Corp. Vs. Sarojamma and Another Amrit Bhanu Shali and Others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, and Smt. Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra). 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, it appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 that the deceased was the only son and while proceeding towards Nirakarapur Railway Station from Padampur by walking on foot on the morum flank of the road, the offending tractor and trolley dashed behind the deceased. He heard about the accident from Manoj Mandhata, who is an eye-witness to the accident. He heard about the accident from Manoj Mandhata, who is an eye-witness to the accident. The evidence of P.W. 2 also corroborates P.W. 1 to the extent that he alongwith Manoj Mandhata were returning from Puri in a scooter bearing registration No. O.R.-02-J-8283 and at that time the offending tractor was coming from Khajuria Sahi facing towards Nirakarpur Bazar side and dashed against the deceased, who was standing on the left side of the road and on seeing the serious condition of the deceased, Tuna @ Ananta Baral, they took him to Khurda Hospital whereafter he was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack and two days thereafter, he died. It is further evident from the evidence of P.W. 2 that he was examined by the police and has been shown as a witness in the charge-sheet in the G.R. record. On the contrary, one Ranjan Pati, who has been examined on behalf of insurance company, as O.P.W. 1, working as Deputy Manager filed documents such as certified copy of R.C. Book of tractor and trailer, certified copy of F.I.R., charge-sheet, insurance policy and premium computation table which were marked as Exts. A to F on their behalf. In paragraph-14 of the evidence of O.P.W. 1, Ranjan Pati specifically states as follows: "I have neither seen the accident nor gone to the spot for enquiry at the time of accident, the driver was having valid driving licence." It is further evident from his evidence that in the seizure list it has been mentioned that no contents loaded in the offending vehicle have been entered. AS per the F.I.R. and charge-sheet, it is alleged that the deceased was travelling in the offending tractor but the informant, who is a police constable, was not examined by the appellant-insurance company. The contents of the F.I.R. must be proved by examining the person, who lodged the same. Hence the police papers cannot be believed/accepted. AS per the F.I.R. and charge-sheet, it is alleged that the deceased was travelling in the offending tractor but the informant, who is a police constable, was not examined by the appellant-insurance company. The contents of the F.I.R. must be proved by examining the person, who lodged the same. Hence the police papers cannot be believed/accepted. On the contrary, the evidence of P.W. 2, who is an eye-witness to the occurrence proved that the deceased was standing in this left side of the road and the offending tractor dashed against the deceased, as a result, the deceased received multiple injuries all over his body and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 28-12-2007 at S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack but no evidence was adduced from the side of the insurance company to dislodge the evidence adduced by P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 2 that the deceased was a pedestrian standing in the left side of the road to whom the offending vehicle dashed, cannot be disbelieved. There is no other material available on record contrary to the evidence adduced by P.W. 2 to that extent. 8. Considering the well settled position of law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court, the F.I.R. and charge-sheet which are not substantive piece of evidence and should not be given preference over the evidence of an eye-witness in view of the judgment in Anita Chand and others mentioned (supra). The F.I.R. charge-sheet and other police papers are not substantive piece of evidence and they are only available for the purpose of corroboration of evidence/contradiction and cannot take the place of substantive evidence recorded during trial in view of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Asalata Rout and others (supra) The F.I.R. cannot be treated as evidence in an claim proceeding. Therefore, the same has no assistance and cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever in view of the judgment in Mataji Bewa and others v. Hemanta Kumar Jena and another (supra). 9. In view of such position and considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court mentioned (supra), this Court comes to a conclusion that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding issue Nos. 9. In view of such position and considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court mentioned (supra), this Court comes to a conclusion that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding issue Nos. II and III that the deceased, who was a pedestrian died due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle remains unchallenged. 10. So far as assessment of the compensation is concerned, it is the admitted case of the parties that at the time the accident had occurred, the deceased was 20 years old and a bachelor. The age of the deceased has also been corroborated by post-mortem report furnished by the doctor. As per the evidence of P.W. 1, the deceased was working as a mason and getting Rs. 3600/- per month and contributing Rs. 2000/- per month to the family. Learned Tribunal considering the case in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Shri Laxman Iyer and another (supra) and MG. Dir., Bangalore Metropolitan Tpt. Corp. Vs. Sarojamma and Another held that the old age of the parents should be taken into consideration for application of multiplier and 1/3rd is to be deducted from the annual income of the deceased towards personal expenses. According, the learned Tribunal assessed the deceased's annual income at Rs. 36,000/- ( Rs. 3000/- per month) and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of deceased, computed the annual dependency at Rs. 24,000/- and applying the multiplier 15 as per second schedule determine the total contribution at total Rs. 3,60,000/-. The learned Tribunal had also granted Rs. 20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 4,500/- towards funeral and loss of estate. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,84,000/- in total. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Syed Basheer Ahmad and others v. Mohd. Jameel and another (supra) and Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (supra) contended that the deceased being a bachelor, 50% of the income should be deducted towards living expenses. In view of the judgment in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others and Sarala Verma and others (supra), deceased being 20 years of old and being a bachelor, multiplier 18' may be applicable. In view of the judgment in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others and Sarala Verma and others (supra), deceased being 20 years of old and being a bachelor, multiplier 18' may be applicable. Instead of doing so, the learned Tribunal has taken multiplier 15' and accordingly determined the amount of compensation at Rs. 3,84,500/-. The calculation which has been taken into consideration by the appellant-insurance company is not based on materials available on record. Therefore, in the fitness of things, the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurance company is not acceptable. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality and irregularity in awarding the compensation of Rs. 3,84,500/- in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award dated 30-3-2012 passed by the learned 5th M.A.C.T., Khurda. Accordingly, the M.A.C.A. is dismissed. No order as to cost.