JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 6.11.2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, Himachal Pradesh, in Claim Petition No. 36 of 2005, titled as Smt. Sonam Chomo and others vs. Union of India and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,52,600/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till its deposit was awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No. 1 to 3, herein) and against the appellants, (for short, 'the impugned award'). Brief Facts 2. The claimants, being the victims of vehicular accident, filed the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that deceased, namely Tara Chand was traveling in Maruti Van No. HP-42-0206 from Kullu to keylong. The Van was hit at Gulaba Mod by a Tipper bearing registration No. 98-E-66249, belonging to the appellants herein, being driven by respondent No. 3, namely Satinder Pal Singh rashly and negligently, while coming from Marhi to Naggar, as a result of which, the Maruti Van rolled down about 150-200 feet from the road. Tara Chand, Tashi and Nawang Phunchog suffered injuries in the said accident and lateron, Tara Chand succumbed to the same. FIR No. 106/2004, under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was registered in Police Station, Manali. 3. It is averred in the claim petition that the deceased Tara Chand was 31 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month from agriculture work, shop and STD booth. It was further pleaded by the claimants that the deceased graduated from Punjab University, Chandigarh. 4. The respondents (appellants herein) and the driver contested the claim petition by filing reply. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether the deceased Tara Chand died due to rash and negligent driving of GREF Tipper No. 98E-66249 by respondent No. 3? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 4. Relief." 6. Parties have led their evidence. The claimants have examined PW. 1 Dr. Balbir Rawat, PW. OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR. 4. Relief." 6. Parties have led their evidence. The claimants have examined PW. 1 Dr. Balbir Rawat, PW. 2 HC Mohar Singh, PW. 3 Smt. Sonam Chomo (claimant) and PW. 4 Nawang Punchong, driver of the Maruti Van. They also placed on record copies of post mortem report, FIR, birth certificate, school leaving certificate, school certificate, B.A. degree, STD licence, death certificate and parivar register as Exts. PW. 1/A, PW. 2/A, PW. 3/A to PW. 3/G, respectively. The respondents have also examined, Satinder Pal Singh, driver of the offending Tipper and B.C. Patel as RW. 1 and RW. 2, respectively. Documents i.e. copies of judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate in the criminal case, mechanical report and statement, were also proved on record by the appellants herein as Exts. RW. 1/A, RW. 2/A and RW. 2/B, respectively. 7. The Tribunal after examining the evidence on the file came to the conclusion that the claimants have proved that the driver, namely Satinder Pal Singh had driven the offending Tipper rashly and negligently and caused the accident by hitting the Maruti Van, which rolled down the road, resulting into the death of Tara Chand, who was an occupant in the said Maruti Van. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the driver of the offending Tipper was acquitted of the criminal case registered against him, by the Trial Magistrate. Thus, it was submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the driver had driven the offending Tipper rashly and negligently. 9. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the reason that in order to prove guilt against an accused in a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In a claim petition, the claimants have to prove their case summarily and it cannot be dismissed on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle has earned acquittal order. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled as N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 457 . 10. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled as N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 457 . 10. It is also beaten law of the land that the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle has to be decided on the hallmark of preponderance of probabilities and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Further also, the claimants claiming compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not to be seen as an adversial litigation, but is to be determined while keeping in view the aim and object of granting compensation. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Dulcina Fernandes and Others Vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and Another, (2013) 10 SCC 646 . 11. The Apex court in Smt. Savita Vs. Bindar Singh and Others, (2014) 4 SCC 505 , has held that at the time of fixing compensation, courts should not succumb to niceties or technicalities of law. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 6 of the said decision hereunder: "6. After considering the decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi (Supra) as well as Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (supra), we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Court to fix a just compensation. At the time of fixing such compensation, the court should not succumb to the niceties or technicalities to grant just compensation in favour of the claimant. It is the duty of the court to equate, as far as possible, the misery on account of the accident with the compensation so that the injured or the dependants should not face the vagaries of life on account of discontinuance of the income earned by the victim. Therefore, it will be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to award just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation judging the situation prevailing at that point of time with reference to the settled principles on assessment of damages. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation." 12. In doing so, the Tribunal can also ignore the claim made by the claimant in the application for compensation with the prime object to assess the award based on the principle that the award should be just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation." 12. A reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others, (1996) 5 SCC 21 , in which, in paragraph 12, it was observed that the courts, while deciding claim petitions, must keep in mind that the right of the claimants is not defeated on technical grounds. Relevant portion of paragraph 12 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder: "12......................... While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunal and Courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment debtor in respect of the liability in view of subsection (1) of Section 96 of the Act. It need not be pointed out that the whole concept of getting the vehicle insured by an insurance company is to provide an easy mode of getting compensation by the claimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other and ultimately to execute the order of the Accident Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle. The procedure and result of the execution of the decree is well known." 13. This Court also, in the recent past, in series of judgments, has followed the similar principle and held that granting of compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims and is to be taken to its logical end without succumbing to the niceties of law, hyper-technicalities and procedural wrangles and tangles. 14. It is clear from the above discussion that the Tribunal has rightly recorded findings under Issue No. 1, which are liable to be upheld. 15. 14. It is clear from the above discussion that the Tribunal has rightly recorded findings under Issue No. 1, which are liable to be upheld. 15. Before Issue No. 2 is taken up, I deem it proper to deal with Issue No. 3. The onus to prove this issue was on the appellants herein. However, there is nothing on the record to show that the claim petition is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal under Issue No. 3, are upheld. Issue No. 2. 16. The Tribunal after examining the pleadings of the parties and the evidence, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 4000/- per month and, after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2800/- per month, which is on the lower side and too meager. However, since the claimants have not questioned the adequacy of compensation, therefore, I reluctantly uphold the same. The Tribunal has correctly applied the multiplier 16'. 17. Having said so, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is adequate and requires no interference. 18. As a consequence of the above discussion, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. The compensation amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award.