Judgment : 1. The Appeal arises out of the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, at Margao, in Claim Petition no. 104/2006 on 31.07.2008, by which, the Claim Petition filed by the Appellants is dismissed on the ground that the Appellants have failed to prove that the car was driven rashly and negligently at the time of the accident. 2. The case of the Appellants is that Shri Muchukandi Chandrappa Harijan, the son of the Appellant nos. 1 and 2, husband of the Appellant no. 3 and father of the Appellant no. 4, died because of the injuries suffered by him in the accident which had taken place on 11.01.2006 at about 8.06 a.m. According to the Appellants, the deceased was proceeding from NSD Dabolim to Vasco, on his bicycle and when he reached the four lane highway near Alto Dabolim, a Maruti car driven by the Respondent no. 1 rashly and negligently dashed against him due to which he suffered injuries and expired. The car involved in the accident was owned by the Respondent no. 2. As the car was not insured, the Insurance Company is not impleaded as party to the proceedings. The Respondents filed common written statements opposing the claim made by the Appellants. The Respondents submitted that the deceased came from the internal road on the four lane highway without taking precaution to stop on the edge of the road and without seeing if any vehicles were coming from the either side of the road. The Respondents have stated that the car was five metres away from the point where the deceased entered the highway and because of this, the Respondent no. 1 could not take any steps and prevent the accident. 3. The learned Trial Judge proceeded with the Claim Petition and by the impugned Award, concluded that the Appellants have failed to prove that the Respondent no. 1 was driving the car rashly and negligently. However, the Tribunal has concluded that the death of Shri Muchukandi Chandrappa Harijan has occurred due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The Tribunal has concluded that the Appellants have proved that the deceased was 26 years old at the time of accident but in view of the finding that the Appellants have failed to prove that the car was driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent no. 1, the Claim Petition is dismissed. The Tribunal has concluded that the Appellants have proved that the deceased was 26 years old at the time of accident but in view of the finding that the Appellants have failed to prove that the car was driven rashly and negligently by the Respondent no. 1, the Claim Petition is dismissed. The Appellants being aggrieved with the Award, have filed this Appeal. 4. I have heard Shri Anthony Rebello, learned Advocate for the Appellants and Shri Avdhut Arsekar, learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1. I have also examined the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates. The following points arise for determination: (i) Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the Respondent no. 1? (ii) Whether the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of Shri Muchukandi Chandrappa Harijan? (iii) Whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of Shri Muchukandi Chandrappa Harijan? (iv) Whether the Appellants are entitled for compensation and to what extent? 5. Shri Rebello, learned Advocate for the Appellants, has submitted that the sketch which is at page no. 53 of the paper book and was drawn at the time of recording the panchanama shows that the bicycle on which the deceased was riding, was dragged up to a distance of 14.50 metres and there were scratch marks on the spot of the accident. The learned Advocate has submitted that this shows that the car was being driven in a very high speed and rashly and negligently and this fact is overlooked by the Tribunal and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the Appellants have failed to prove that the car was driven rashly and negligently at the time of accident is unsustainable in law. The learned Advocate for the Appellants has relied on the evidence of Shri Premanand Dessai who has drawn the panchanama to prove the sketch. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellants that the Respondent no. 1 was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A I.P.C. The learned Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that though the Respondent no. 1 is acquitted in the criminal trial, but the parameters while dealing with the Claim Petition are different and the fact that the Respondent no.1 was prosecuted itself is sufficient to prove that the Respondent no. 1 is acquitted in the criminal trial, but the parameters while dealing with the Claim Petition are different and the fact that the Respondent no.1 was prosecuted itself is sufficient to prove that the Respondent no. 1 was driving the car rashly and negligently. The learned Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Tribunal had passed the Order directing the Respondents to pay the amount of "No Fault Liability", which is paid by the Respondents without disputing their liability in that regards. The learned Advocate for the Appellants has relied on the following Judgments: (i) AIR 1977 Karnataka 6 in the case of The General Manager, Bangalore Transport Service, Bangalore vs. N. Narasimhaiah & Ors. (2) AIR 2014 SC 58 in the case of Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & anr. 6. Shri Arsekar, learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1 has submitted that the deceased came on the highway without looking on either side and this shows the negligence on his part. The learned Advocate has shown the sketch which is at page no. 72 of the paper book and has submitted that the sketch along with the pleadings of the Appellants in the Claim Petition in paragraph no. 23, shows that the negligence was on the part of the deceased and it has resulted in the accident. The learned Advocate for the Respondent no.1 has pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of Shri Rohan Athre and Shri Premanand Dessai, and have submitted that their evidence is unreliable and cannot be considered for fastening the liability of compensation. Shri Arsekar, learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1, has pointed out from the evidence of Shri Marshall Pinto, the PSI attached to Vasco Police Station at the relevant time that, as per his investigation, it was found that the deceased was crossing the divider at the time of the accident and the accident occurred when the deceased suddenly crossed the lane leading from Birla to Vasco after he crossed the first lane and that the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased. The learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1 has submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence of the parties properly and has come to the right conclusion which does not require any interference. The learned Advocate for the Respondent no. The learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1 has submitted that the Tribunal has considered the evidence of the parties properly and has come to the right conclusion which does not require any interference. The learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1 has relied on the following Judgments : (i) 2012(6) ALL MR 471(SC) in the case of Surender Kumar Arora & anr. vs. Dr. Major Bisla & Ors. (ii) 2012(2) ALL MR 244 in the case of Narayan Kalangutkar & anr. vs. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., & Ors. (iii) 2011(1) ALL MR 100 in the case of Nalini Ramesh Satarkar vs. Shri Shivappa Shidappa Halli & anr. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates. It is undisputed that the Tribunal has passed the Order directing the Respondents to pay the amount towards "No Fault Liability" and the Respondents have paid the above mentioned amount to the Appellants without challenging the Order passed by the Tribunal. It is undisputed that the car owned by the Respondent no. 2 and driven by the Respondent no. 1, was involved in the accident. The issue which is required to be considered is, who is at fault. The sketch at page no. 72 is admitted by both the parties. The above mentioned sketch shows that the bicycle on which the deceased was going is dragged to a distance of 14.50 metres and there are scratches on the road at the spot of the accident. It is the case of the Respondent no. 1 that he saw the deceased coming on the highway from a distance of five metres. Considering the submission on behalf of the Respondent no. 1 that the Respondent no. 1 saw the deceased on the bicycle from a distance of 5 metres and considering the undisputed facts shown at page 72 of the paper book that the bicycle was dragged up to a distance of 14.50 metres, it is clear that the car was driven by the Respondent no. 1 at a high speed. In view of the fact that the highway at that spot is connected to an internal road, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent no. 1 to take due precaution anticipating the entry of some vehicle or person from the internal road. These facts show that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed. In view of the fact that the highway at that spot is connected to an internal road, it was incumbent on the part of the Respondent no. 1 to take due precaution anticipating the entry of some vehicle or person from the internal road. These facts show that the vehicle was being driven at a very high speed. In my view, the facts on record show that the Respondent no. 1 was driving the car rashly and negligently. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz & anr. (supra), the plea of negligence has to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of all probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 2012 SC 86 in the case of United Indian Insurance Com. Ltd., vs. Sheila Datta & Ors. has recorded as follows : “(ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. (v) Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. (vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge or and matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry.” The following further observation available in paragraph 10 of the report would require specific note: “We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversatial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute.” 8. However, it cannot be said that there is no fault of the deceased. Considering the above proposition and the material on the record, I am of the view that contributory negligence has to be attributed to the deceased upto 30 percent. 9. The case of the Appellants is that the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Considering the above proposition and the material on the record, I am of the view that contributory negligence has to be attributed to the deceased upto 30 percent. 9. The case of the Appellants is that the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. The learned Presiding Officer has held that the Appellants have not produced any evidence on the record to show the income of the deceased. It is difficult for such persons to produce any material on the record to prove the income. However, it cannot be ruled out that the deceased who was physically fit and 26 years old at the time of the accident was earning on an average Rs.3,000/- per month. The deceased being 26 years old at the time of the accident, the multiplier of 17 has to be applied as laid down in the case of SarlaVerma (Smt) & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & anr. reported in (2009) 6 S.C.C. 121 . Thus, the amount of compensation on account of the death of the deceased has to be Rs.6,12,000/-. As per the note below the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, one-third of the amount has to be deducted as the deceased would have spent it on his own expenses. Thus, the amount of compensation works out at Rs.4,08,000/-. In view of my findings that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased up to 30 percent, the amount of compensation works out at Rs.2,72,000/-. As per the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Appellants are entitled for the amount of Rs.2,000/- towards the funeral expenses. The Appellants are entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/-for the loss of company of the deceased. Thus, the Appellants are entitled for Rs.2,84,000/-as compensation from the Respondents. The amount of Rs.50,000/-deposited by the Appellants towards "No Fault Liability" should be deducted from the amount of Rs.2,84,000/-which is awarded by this Judgment. The Respondents are liable to pay further amount of Rs.2,34,000/- to the Appellants. The Appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. The Appellant no. The Respondents are liable to pay further amount of Rs.2,34,000/- to the Appellants. The Appellants are also entitled for interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount. The Appellant no. 4, daughter of the deceased was minor at the time of the accident and, perhaps, looking to the facts on the record, she had not yet attained majority. Therefore, the interests of the Appellant no. 4 will have to be protected. 10. Therefore, the following Order: (i) The Award passed by the Tribunal on 31.07.2008, is set aside. (ii) The Respondents are liable to make the payment of the amount of compensation jointly and severally. The Respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the amount of Rs.2,34,000/-along with interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition till the amount is deposited with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Goa, at Margao. (iii) The amount should be deposited by the Respondents within two months from today. (iv) On the deposit of the amount, the Tribunal is directed to permit the Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 to withdraw Rs.50,000/- each. (v) The balance amount of Rs.84,000/-along with the amount of interest shall be invested in fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank in the name of the Appellant no. 4. (vi) The Appellant no. 4 shall be entitled to withdraw the amount on attaining the age of 21 years. If the Appellant no. 4 requires any amount before she attains the age of 21 years, the Appellant no. 4 is permitted to move an application according to law before the Tribunal pointing out the exigencies and the Tribunal shall consider the application on merits, according to law. (vii) The Appellants are also entitled for the proportionate costs of the proceedings throughout from the Respondents. (viii) The Appeal is accordingly allowed.