JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.11.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MACP No.20-P/2006, titled Vikky Devi and others versus Kuldeep Bhatia and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants came to be dismissed, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Insurer, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained the finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Claimants being the victims of a vehicular accident filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition which was resisted by all the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. 1. Whether the respondent No. 2 was driving the tractor No. HP-37-7665 owned by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner on 19.12.2005 and had hit the said tractor against the deceased Kamaljeet Singh Bhatia, and caused his death? OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-1&2. 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties? OPR-1&2. 5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger as alleged? If so its effect? OPR-3. 6. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident as alleged? OPR-3. 7. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied by respondent No. 1 in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? If so its effect? OPR-3. 8. Relief. 5. Claimants examined five witnesses and claimant No. 1 Smt. Vikky Devi herself stepped into the witness-box as PW1. Respondents, on the other hand examined three witnesses and respondent No. 2 Manjit Singh Bhatia driver of offending vehicle stepped into the witness-box as RW1. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence determined issue No. 1 against the claimants and dismissed the claim petition. Respondents, on the other hand examined three witnesses and respondent No. 2 Manjit Singh Bhatia driver of offending vehicle stepped into the witness-box as RW1. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence determined issue No. 1 against the claimants and dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal has held that the final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short “the Code” was filed against Manjit Singh driver in which accused Manjit Singh was acquitted vide judgment Ext. RW1/C and accordingly held that the claimants have failed to prove that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 7. In civil cases, the parties have to prove their cases by preponderance of probabilities. In summary cases like granting of compensation, in terms of the mandate of Section 166, Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, summary procedure has to be adopted, without succumbing to the niceties and technicalities of procedure. It is beaten law of the land that technicalities or procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play. 8. My this view is fortified by the judgment delivered by the apex court in Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 646 , N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354 and Oriental Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 J&K 81 . 9. This Court has also laid down the similar principles of law in FAO No. 692 of 2008 decided on 4.9.2015 titled Cholamandlan MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Jamna Devi and others, FAO No. 287 of 2014 along with connected matter, decided on 18.9.2015 titled Tulsi Ram versus Smt. Beena Devi and others, FAO No. 72 of 2008 along with connected matter decided on 10.7.2015 titled Anil Kumar versus Nitim Kumar and others and FAO No. 174 of 2013 decided on 5.9.2014 titled Kusum Kumari versus M.D. U.P Roadways and others. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has wrongly returned the findings in para 18 of the impugned award. 11. It is apt to record herein that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the criminal case held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, is not a clear-cut acquittal. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has wrongly returned the findings in para 18 of the impugned award. 11. It is apt to record herein that the learned Trial Court while dismissing the criminal case held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, is not a clear-cut acquittal. It is apt to reproduce para 14 of the said judgment herein. “14. In view of the forgoing discussion, the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the evening of 19.12.2005 around 9 p.m. at Rajpur Tanda, P.S. Palampur accused was driving Tractor No. HP-37-7665 on the public way rashly and negligently which resulted in causing death of Kamaljeet Singh when the aforesaid tractor rolled down into fields and the aforesaid tractor overturned on deceased Kamaljit Singh, rather the case of prosecution is shrouded under the shadow of doubt, the benefit of which deserves to be given to the accused. Thus, while giving benefit of doubt to the accused, point No. 1 is decided in negative.” 12. I have gone through the record. Prima facie, it is established and proved that the driver had driven the offending tractor rashly and negligent and caused the accident, in which deceased lost his life. Accordingly, the claimants have proved issue No.1 and the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are set aside and this issue is decided in favour of the claimants/appellants herein and against the respondents. 13. Before dealing with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 7. Issue No.3. 14. It was for the respondents to prove how the claim petition was not maintainable. Respondents have taken the pleas in the written statement. Parties had knowledge of their respective pleadings, understood their case, joined the trial and contested the case. It was for the insurer to prove that the claim petition was not maintainable or there was collusion, has not led any evidence to that effect. However, I have gone through the claim petition. The claimants are victims of a vehicular accident and the claim petition was maintainable. 15. In terms of mandate of Section 166 of the Act, an application has to be made by a person who has sustained injuries or by legal representatives where the accident has resulted into death of a person or by owner of property. 16. The claimants are victims of a vehicular accident and the claim petition was maintainable. 15. In terms of mandate of Section 166 of the Act, an application has to be made by a person who has sustained injuries or by legal representatives where the accident has resulted into death of a person or by owner of property. 16. Section 166 of the Act mandates that the Tribunal has to treat report made by the police agency under Section 158(6) of the Act as a claim petition. It is apt to reproduce Sections 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act herein. “158 (1 to 5)….. …… “(6) As soon as any information regarding any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person is recorded or report under this section is completed by a police officer, the officer incharge of the police station shall forward a copy of the same within thirty days from the date of recording of information or, as the case may be, on completion of such report to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction and a copy thereof to the concerned insurer, and where a copy is made available to the owner, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to such Claims Tribunal and Insurer. 166 (1) to (3)…. …… ….. (4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under sub-section (6) of section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.” 17. The mandate of the aforesaid provisions of the Act is that a police report can be treated as claim petition. 18. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 3. Respondents have not questioned these findings, are accordingly upheld. Issue No. 4. 19. It was for respondents No. 1 and 2 to show how the claim petition suffers from non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Driver, owner and insured have been arrayed as parties. It is not the case of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. Issue No.5. 20. It was for the insurer to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and onus was on it, has failed to discharge the same. It is not the case of non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly decided this issue. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. Issue No.5. 20. It was for the insurer to prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and onus was on it, has failed to discharge the same. Even the insurer has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal, on this issue in para 19 of the impugned award. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the insurer that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, is not tenable for the reasons that the Trial Court has held that the tractor has rolled down and deceased was crushed. There is not an iota of evidence on the record to show or prove that the deceased was gratuitous passenger. Having said so, findings returned on issue No. 5 are upheld. Issue No.6. 21. It was for the insurer to prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, has not led any evidence. However, I have gone through the driving licence Ext. RW1/A, which is valid and effective. Thus, the findings recorded on this issue merits to be upheld and are accordingly upheld. Issue No.7. 22. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the insured has committed willful breach, has not led any evidence. Even the findings recorded on issue No. 7 have not been questioned by the insurer. Accordingly, the same merits to be upheld and are accordingly upheld. Issue No.2. 23. The Tribunal has not determined issue No. 2. Claimants have pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.15,000-20,000/- per month, was a green grocer and also selling milk. It can be safely held that the deceased was earning not less than Rs.6000/- per month. In view of the 2nd Schedule attached to the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120, the multiplier applicable is “15” and is accordingly applied. The claimants are three in numbers and 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 24. The claimants are three in numbers and 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. 24. Thus, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4000x12x15= Rs.7,20,000/- under the head loss of source of dependency. 25. In addition, the claimants are also held entitled to compensation under the following four heads: (i) Loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/- (iv) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.40,000/- 26. Accordingly, the claimants are held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.7,20,000+ Rs.40,000= Rs.7,60,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum, from the date of claim petition till its realization. 27. The factum of insurance is not in dispute. Thus, the insurer is saddled with the liability and has to satisfy the award. 28. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, within eight weeks from today in the Registry. The Registry, on deposit, is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, through payees’ cheque account, or by depositing the same in their bank accounts, after proper verification. 29. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside, as indicated hereinabove. 30. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.