JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. The appellants-claimants have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the mandate of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short “MV Act”) and have questioned the award, dated 5th August, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 66-MAC/2 of 2008, titled as Smt. Bimla Devi and others versus Shri Vijender Kumar and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellants-claimants came to be dismissed (for short “the impugned award”). 2. In order to determine this appeal, it is necessary to give a brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the appeal in hand. 3. The appellants-claimants invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal by the medium of the claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- as per the break ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that their sole bread earner, namely Shri Puran Singh @ Kaka, son of appellants-claimants No. 1 & 2, brother of appellant-claimant No. 3 and father of appellant-claimant No. 4, became victim of the accident arising out of use of the motor vehicle, i.e. truck, bearing registration No. HP-16-9135, on 28th July, 2005, at about 12.00 midnight at Kabir Petrol Pump near Zirakpur, Punjab. 4. It has been averred in the claim petition that when the deceased, who was 28 years of age at the time of the accident, was travelling in the offending vehicle as conductor and they reached at Kabir Petrol Pump Near Zirakpur, Punjab, the offending vehicle developed some defect and while its one of the tyres was being repaired, the another tyre of the said vehicle burst and its rim hit deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka, who sustained injuries, was admitted in Government Medical College & Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the said injuries on 30th July, 2005. 5. It has also been pleaded that deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka was working as a conductor/labourer with the offending vehicle and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month from all sources, i.e. as conductor/labourer, driver and agriculturist. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the owner insured, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the owner insured, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 7. The owner insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have filed the joint reply and admitted the factum of accident, death and cause of death of deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka. They have also admitted that deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka was working as a conductor with the offending vehicle. 8. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 21st March, 2009: “1. Whether Puran Chand died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HP-16-9135 by respondent No.2 Madhi Ali on 28-7-2005 at about 12.00 midnight at place Kabir Petrol Pump near Zirakpur, as alleged? OPP 2. In case 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 not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and valid route permit, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Relief.” 9. The appellants-claimants have examined Shri Hajara Singh as PW1; Shri Anil Kumar PW2; Shri Tota Ram as PW3; HC Krishan Dutt as PW4; Shri Chander Bose as PW6; Shri Trilok Nath as PW7 and one of the claimants, namely Smt. Bimla Devi, herself appeared in the witness box as PW5. 10. The respondents have not led any evidence. However, driver, namely Shri Madi Ali Shah appeared in the witness box and has admitted that the deceased was working as a conductor with the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 11. 10. The respondents have not led any evidence. However, driver, namely Shri Madi Ali Shah appeared in the witness box and has admitted that the deceased was working as a conductor with the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 11. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the mishap was not on account of any negligence on the part of the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, but was on account of the inept handling of the vehicle by the mechanic or some inherent manufacturing defect existing in the vehicle and dismissed the claim petition in terms of the impugned award. Issue No. 1: 12. The moot question is – whether the Tribunal has rightly determined issue No. 1 and dismissed the claim petition? The answer is in the negative for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. 13. The appellants-claimants have specifically averred in the claim petition that at the time of the relevant point of time, deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka was travelling in the offending vehicle as conductor and when they reached at Kabir Petrol Pump Near Zirakpur, Punjab, the offending vehicle developed some defect and while its one of the tyres was being repaired, the another tyre of the said vehicle burst and its rim hit deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka, who sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. The appellants-claimants have also led evidence to this effect. 14. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not denied the factum of employment of deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka with the offending truck as conductor, cause of the injuries sustained by him which resulted into his death. It is also admitted fact that the offending vehicle was stationery for the purpose of repairing the tyre, as discussed hereinabove. 15. The owner-insured and insurer of the offending vehicle have not led any evidence in support of their pleadings/defence. Thus, the evidence led by the appellants-claimants has remained un-rebutted and the owner-insured and the insurer have failed to prove their defence. 16. Thus, the question is – whether the claim petition was maintainable? 17. The compensation was to be granted under Section 166 of the MV Act for the following reasons: 18. Thus, the evidence led by the appellants-claimants has remained un-rebutted and the owner-insured and the insurer have failed to prove their defence. 16. Thus, the question is – whether the claim petition was maintainable? 17. The compensation was to be granted under Section 166 of the MV Act for the following reasons: 18. The MV Act has gone through a sea change in the year 1994 and in terms of Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the MV Act, the Tribunal can treat even a police report as a claim petition. 19. The purpose of granting compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims of the motor vehicular accident and the niceties, hyper technicalities, procedural wrangles and tangles and mystic maybes have no role to play and that should not be a ground to dismiss the claim petition and to defeat the rights of the claimants. 20. The same principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases titled as N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and others, reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354; Sohan Lal Passi versus P. Sesh Reddy and others, reported in, AIR 1996 Supreme Court 2627 and Dulcina Fernandes and others versus Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in, (2013) 10 SCC 646 . 21. This Court has also laid down the same principle in a series of cases. 22. It is the duty of the Tribunal/Appellate Court to achieve the aim and object of the granting of compensation. The strict proof is not required and discrepancies or pleadings or loose pleadings cannot be made a ground to dismiss the claim petition. These proceedings are summary in nature, do not require strict compliance of the rules of evidence and pleadings. The Tribunal has to see that innocent victims do not suffer and it cannot wash its hands of the responsibility and duty by dismissing the claim petition. It is to be kept in mind by the Tribunal that it is dealing with a claim petition which is outcome of social welfare legislation. 23. It is well established principle of law that the Tribunal, while dealing with claim petition, has to keep in mind that it is outcome of a social legislation, has to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and has to apply a more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach. 24. 23. It is well established principle of law that the Tribunal, while dealing with claim petition, has to keep in mind that it is outcome of a social legislation, has to follow the principles of justice, equity and good conscience and has to apply a more realistic, pragmatic and liberal approach. 24. The Apex Court in a case titled as Madan Gopal Kanodia versus Mamraj Maniram and others, reported in, (1977) 1 SCC 669 , held that the Courts should not scrutinize the pleadings with such meticulous care resulting in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds. It is apt to reproduce para 13 of the judgment herein: “13. …... It is well-settled that pleadings are loosely drafted in the Courts and the Courts should not scrutinise the pleadings with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds. In our opinion the finding of the High Court that there was wide gap between the pleadings and the proof is not at all borne out from the record of the present case.” 25. Having glance of the above discussions, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the deceased sustained injuries while one of the tyres of the offending vehicle burst and its rim hit the deceased. Thus, it is a case of accident arising 'out of use of motor vehicle'. 26. This Court was dealing with cases of similar nature in FAO No. 537 of 2008, titled as United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Sh. Talaru Ram and others, decided on 18th December, 2015, and FAO No. 465 of 2009, titled as Smt. Sharestha Devi and others versus Kishori Lal and others, decided on 1st July, 2016; and while relying upon various decisions rendered by the Apex Court, held that claim petition is maintainable. 27. The same question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a case titled as B. Fathima versus S.M. Umarabba & Ors., reported in, II (2007) ACC 613 (DB), wherein wooden logs were being unloaded from a lorry at a sawmill, the rope tied as a grip to the said logs was untied negligently, due to which a wooden log fell on the deceased who was near the lorry for the purpose of unloading. It was held that the accident occurred when the lorry was in use, deceased was a third party and the insurer was saddled with liability. 28. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in a case titled as Rajan versus John, reported in, 2009 (2) T.A.C. 260 (Ker.), wherein the claimant sustained injury while unloading marble from a stationed truck, held that any accident arising during loading and unloading is an accident arising on account of use of vehicle and claim petition was maintainable. 29. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case titled as Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., through its Senior Divisional Manager, Jammu versus Smt. Nirmala Devi and others, reported in, 2009 (3) T.A.C. 684 (J&K) has laid down the same principle. 30. The Apex Court in the case titled as Mst. Param Pal Singh through father versus M/s National Insurance Co. and another, reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 283, has recorded that a claim is maintainable for grant of compensation, if a driver while driving the vehicle for long distance and thereafter holding the vehicle, taking rest, has lost his life. The Apex Court has further held that the accident is an outcome of the use of motor vehicle and during the course of the employment. It is apt to reproduce para 27 of the judgment herein: “27. Applying the various principles laid down in the above decisions to the facts of this case, we can validly conclude that there was CASUAL CONNECTION to the death of the deceased with that of his employment as a truck driver. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms. away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. We cannot lose sight of the fact that a 45 years old driver meets with his unexpected death, may be due to heart failure while driving the vehicle from Delhi to a distant place called Nimiaghat near Jharkhand which is about 1152 kms. away from Delhi, would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to such long distance driving. The deceased being a professional heavy vehicle driver when undertakes the job of such driving as his regular avocation it can be safely held that such constant driving of heavy vehicle, being dependant solely upon his physical and mental resources and endurance, there was every reason to assume that the vocation of driving was a material contributory factor if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death to occur which in all fairness should be held to be an untoward mishap in his life span. Such an ‘untoward mishap’ can therefore be reasonably described as an ‘accident’ as having been caused solely attirubutable to the nature of employment indulged in with his employer which was in the course of such employer’s trade or business. ” 31. Having said so, it is held that deceased Puran Chand @ Kaka died 'in the use of motor vehicle'. 32. Now, the question is – whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? 33. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a conductor with the offending vehicle. Thus, the claimants have a legal right to claim compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “WC Act”) because the deceased was conductor under employment of the owner-insured, insurer had to indemnify as per the terms and conditions contained in the Policy and the compensation was to be granted as per the Schedule attached with the said Act. Section 167 of the MV Act provides an option to lay a claim petition either before an authority under the WC Act or before the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of the MV Act: “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. Section 167 of the MV Act provides an option to lay a claim petition either before an authority under the WC Act or before the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce Section 167 of the MV Act: “167. Option regarding claims for compensation in certain cases. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.” 34. While going through the provisions of law, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the claimants being the legal representatives of the employee deceased, have two remedies to claim compensation and in terms of Section 167 of the MV Act, they can seek compensation at higher side. It is not disputed that the claimants are not legal representatives of the deceased and the dependants. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation. 35. Viewed thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are set aside and is determined accordingly. 36. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 3 to 6. Issue No. 3: 37. It was for the respondents, i.e. the owner-insured, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle, to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable, have not led any evidence, thus, have failed to discharge the onus. In view of the findings returned on issue No.1 (supra), the claim petition was maintainable. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are set aside and it is held that the claim petition was maintainable. Issue No. 4: 38. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same, has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. 39. Issue No. 4: 38. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same, has not led any evidence, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. 39. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the question whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence is irrelevant for the reason that at the relevant point of time, the driver was not driving the offending vehicle, but, the same was parked and stationary in order to get the vehicle repaired. The question of valid and effective driving licence has no connection with the death of the deceased. However, the driving licence is on the record as Ext. P1, the perusal of which does disclose that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same at the relevant point of time. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 4 are set aside and the same is decided in favour of the driver and owner-insured and against the insurer. Issue No. 5: 40. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and valid route permit and the owner- insured has committed willful breach. Though, it has been pleaded, that is why this issue came to be framed, but has not led any evidence to prove any breach, not to speak of willful breach, and has failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 5 are set aside and the same is decided in favour of the owner-insured and against the insurer. Issue No. 6: 41. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that there was any collusion between the appellants-claimants and the owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.6 are set aside and the same is decided against the insurer. Issue No. 2: 42. The appellants-claimants have pleaded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a conductor. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.6 are set aside and the same is decided against the insurer. Issue No. 2: 42. The appellants-claimants have pleaded that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.8,000/- per month. Admittedly, the deceased was working as a conductor. Thus, by guess work, it can be safely held that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.4,000/-per month. One fourth is to be deducted towards his personal expenses keeping in view para 30 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case titled as Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in, AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case titled as Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in, 2013 AIR SCW 3120. Thus, it can be safely said and held that the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.3,000/- per month. 43. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased was 28 years of age at the time of the accident. The perusal of the Parivar Register, Ext. PW3/A, does disclose that the deceased was 29 years of age at relevant point of time. 44. The Apex Court in the case titled as Munna Lal Jain & another versus Vipin Kumar Sharma & others, reported in, 2015 AIR SCW 3105, held that the multiplier has to be applied while keeping in view the age of the deceased. 45. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra) and upheld by a larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari's case (supra), and Munna Lal Jain's case (supra) read with Second Schedule appended with the MV Act, multiplier of 16' is just and appropriate even if the age of the deceased is taken as 29 years at the relevant point of time. 46. Having said so, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of dependency' to the tune of Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 16 = Rs.5,76,000/- . 47. The appellants-claimants are also held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of love and affection' 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. 48. The question is – who is to be saddled with liability? 49. The factum of insurance is admitted. 47. The appellants-claimants are also held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each under the heads 'loss of love and affection' 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses'. 48. The question is – who is to be saddled with liability? 49. The factum of insurance is admitted. The offending vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time and the risk of employee was covered. Thus, the insurer was to be saddled with liability. Issue No.2 is decided accordingly. 50. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is set aside, the claim petition is granted, the appellants-claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.5,76,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/- = Rs.6,06,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization and the insurer is saddled with liability. 51. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. On deposition, the same be released in favour of the claimants in equal shares through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. In case claimant No.4 is minor, her share be deposited in Fixed Deposit for a period of five years. 52. The appeal is allowed accordingly. 53. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.