JUDGMENT & ORDER : This appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is directed against the judgment dated 25-11-2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura in Title Suit (MAC) No.32 of 2012 awarding a compensation of Rs.15,72,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from the date of claim petition on the ground that there was no proof of negligence. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. On 13-11-2011, when the deceased Nirmal Das was proceeding from Dhumachara towards Manu by a motor bike bearing registration number TR-02-B-8171 driven by one Sarat Mohan Tripura as a pillion rider, the motor bike ran out of control and tumbled down by the side of the road thereby causing grievous injuries on the deceased. He succumbed to his juries on the next day at Manughat Primary Hospital. He was said to be 32 years old at the time of the accident and carrying on the business of fruits in the Manughat market. He is also said to be running a poultry farm and doing cultivation work and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as income. He is survived by his wife (the respondent No.1), his minor son (the respondent No.2) and his parents (the respondent 3 and 4), who jointly filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.22,95,000/-. It may be noted that the police also registered Dhuma Chara P.S. Case No.DMC/11/2011 dated 14-11-2011 U/s 279/304 IPC. The outcome of the police case is not brought to the notice of this Court. 3. The owner of the motor bike was impleaded as the Opposite Party No.1, while the National Insurance Company was impleaded as the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 (the appellant herein). The respondent No.1 contested the claim petition and filed his written statement denying any negligence in the vehicular accident; the bike, while riding over a speed breaker, jumped and tumbled on the road. This, according to the respondent No.1, resulted in the death of the deceased, who was a pillion rider. The respondent No.1 further pointed out that his bike was insured with the appellant and if compensation was to be paid, it was the liability of the appellant to satisfy the award. The appellant-insurer also resisted the claim petition and filed its written statement. The respondent No.1 further pointed out that his bike was insured with the appellant and if compensation was to be paid, it was the liability of the appellant to satisfy the award. The appellant-insurer also resisted the claim petition and filed its written statement. The insurer denied that claim of the claimant-respondents and asserted that no accident took place involving the motor bike of the respondent No.1 and that the FIR itself disclosed that the deceased did not die in a motor accident, but he was alleged to have been murdered, as alleged by his father, and golden chain, mobile, etc. of the deceased were stolen. The appellant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the claim petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination : 1. Whether the deceased Nirmal Das died in a vehicular accident which took place on 13-11-2011 at about 9/10 PM at Ruaza Paras on Dhumachara Manu Road under PS Dhumachara due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-B-8171 (Hero Honda Glammer) by its rider? 2. Whether the claimant-petitioners are entitled to have any compensation, if so, to what extent and who shall be held liable to pay the same? At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment. 5. Since the main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant-respondents failed to prove that there was no rash and negligent driving of the bike by the respondent No.1 and since the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant is not liable to satisfy the award, I will straightaway refer to the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.1: “5. …….… Therafter, after conducting investigation police submitted charge sheet against the rider Sarat Mohan Tripura of the offending vehicle U/s 279/304-A IPC since it was accidental death. Further, from the PM report, it also reveals that death of the deceased was due to intracranial bleeding of brain due to road traffic accident and it was accidental in nature. Though the O.P. Insurance company filed evidence of OPW1, but they merely stated that charge sheet is managed one based on perfunctory investigation. But they did not challenge the charge sheet nor adduce any evidence to show that the investigation was perfunctory.” 6. Though the O.P. Insurance company filed evidence of OPW1, but they merely stated that charge sheet is managed one based on perfunctory investigation. But they did not challenge the charge sheet nor adduce any evidence to show that the investigation was perfunctory.” 6. Another argument as advanced by learned advocate for the insurance company is that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike, as I have stated above. Here also I like to point out that the petitioner No.1 (sic) in his evidence alleged rash and negligent driving of the offending motor bike on the date of accident. I have already discussed above that the I.O. after investigation submitted charge sheet against the rider for rash and negligent driving. On the other hand the insurance company adduced no evidence challenging the investigation to rebut the charge sheet as well as the oral evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, I conclude that the petition is maintainable U/s 166 of the M.V. Act. Hence, the ruling cited by the learned advocate for the insurance company is not befitting in the case. In view of the discussion made above, it is proved that on 13-11-2011 the deceased Nirmal Das while returning to Manu by the motor bike bearing No. TR-02-B-8171 as a pillion rider it met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. Accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioners.” 7. On careful reading of the findings of the Tribunal, it becomes apparent that no eyewitness was produced by the claimant-respondents to substantiate their case that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1. I have also meticulously perused the charge sheet as well as the statements of witnesses upon which heavy reliance is placed by the Tribunal to conclude that there was rash and negligent driving of the motor bike resulting in the death of the deceased. A liability under Section 166 of the Act can be cast on another only if he is in anyway responsible for the accident which occasioned the injury. The Act does not provide a new right or a new remedy to a person who is injured by an accident. The provisions of the Act do not in any way interfere with the substantive common law on the subject. The Act does not provide a new right or a new remedy to a person who is injured by an accident. The provisions of the Act do not in any way interfere with the substantive common law on the subject. It, therefore, follows that the claimant has to prove that the opposite party used the vehicle in such a negligent way that it occasioned the injury for which compensation is claimed. In other words, in proceedings for compensation on ground of negligence of a motor vehicle driver, the burden of establishing actionable negligence on the part of the driver who drove the vehicle is entirely upon the claimants to prove negligence. There is, however, a ride to this proposition of law, namely, where the circumstances are established to show that the road was clear and there was no impediment and traffic, and yet the accident, the burden lies on the driver or owner of the vehicle to prove reason or the accident. In the instance case, no evidence is led by the claimant-respondents to establish such peculiar circumstances which can shift the onus of prove upon the driver of the vehicle to establish as to how the accident happens. Sometimes, the doctrine of res-ipsa-loquitor-may also absolve the claimant of the need to prove negligence on the part of the driver. But, unfortunately, in this case, no foundation is laid from which an inference of res-ipsa-loquitor-can be drawn by this Court. In the view that I have taken, the findings of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending bike was guilty of rash and negligent driving which resulted in the death of the deceased, cannot be sustained in law. 8. Confronted with this, Mr. A. De, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, accepted the suggestion of this Court that the claim petition can be converted into one under Section 163-A of the Act and that the compensation should accordingly be arrived at by restricting the income of the deceased to Rs.40,000/- per annum. This Court made this suggestion since there can be no dispute between the parties that the deceased died in a vehicular accident. This Court made this suggestion since there can be no dispute between the parties that the deceased died in a vehicular accident. Under Section 163-A of the Accident, what is required to be established is the income of the victim, the age of the victim and the fact of motor vehicle accident, which is either fatal or has caused injury, with the name of owner and insurer of the motor vehicle. Question of liability and the extent thereof are not justiciable in an application under Section 163-A of the Act. As soon as the date is provided, the Tribunal can decide compensation on the basis of structured formula and that too instantly and expeditiously. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the age of the deceased, which was found by the Tribunal to be 32 years at the time of the accident. There is also no dispute about the factum of the accident though it was faintly suggested, but not proved that the deceased was murdered. As for the income of the deceased, the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has agreed to restrict the same to Rs.40,000/- per annum. That being the position, by applying the structured, considering the age of the deceased, a multiplier of 16 shall have to be adopted. Thus, the loss of dependency due to the death of the deceased will be Rs.40,000 x 16 = Rs.6,40,000, from which 1/3rd shall be deducted for the living and personal expenses of the deceased i.e. Rs.6,40,000, Rs.2,13,334= Rs.4,26,666/-. A sum of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be added for the loss of consortium, which shall be payable only to the respondent No.2 (wife of the deceased). Another sum of Rs.25,000/- shall be awarded to each of the claimant-respondents for loss of estate. The respondent No. 2 shall also be entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- for funeral expenses plus Rs.5,000/- for transportation. Thus, the total amount of compensation payable to the claimant-respondents will come Rs.6,56,666/-. The claimant-respondents shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition. The claimant-respondent No.2 shall be entitled to 40% of the compensation with the accrued interest, which is inclusive of the award with respect to loss of consortium, whereas the claimant-respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 shall be entitled to 20% each thereon. 9. The claimant-respondent No.2 shall be entitled to 40% of the compensation with the accrued interest, which is inclusive of the award with respect to loss of consortium, whereas the claimant-respondent No. 3, 4 and 5 shall be entitled to 20% each thereon. 9. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this appeal is partly allowed. The appellant-insurer is, therefore, directed to deposit with the Registry a sum of Rs.6,56,666/- together with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from the date of the claim petition within 45 days from the date of receipt of this judgment. The share of the respondent No.3, who is a minor, shall be kept in a fixed deposit with scheduled commercial bank for a period of five years. The remaining amount shall be released to each of he claimant-respondents as and when the said is deposited after fulfilling the usual formalities without further reference to this Court. It is, however, noticed that the appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs.18,78,000/- with the Registry. Therefore, any amount so deposited in excess of the amount finally awarded herein shall be refunded forthwith to the appellant-insurer without further reference to this Court. The impugned judgment, accordingly, stands modified to the extent indicated above. Transmit the lower court records forthwith.