JUDGMENT : Anuja Prabhudessai, J. By consent of the parties, delay is condoned. Appeal is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging the judgment and award dated 17.7.2015 in Claims Application No. 345 of 2008, passed by the Claims Tribunal, Mumbai. By the impugned judgment and award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.11,88,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per anum from the date of application till final realization. 3. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased Brahmanand Padmakar Shukla, who had expired in a motor vehicular accident at Mahul Pada Road on 16/4/2006. The respondent nos.1 and 2 shall be hereinafter referred to as the claimants. It was the case of the complainant that on 16.4.2014, at about 2.45 p.m. while Brahmanand Shukla was proceeding towards Mahul Village, on his motor-cycle one BEST bus bearing number MH-01-H-8990 came at a high speed and dashed against his motorcycle. Said Brahmanand expired as a result of the injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. The claimants stated that the accident was caused solely due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the BEST bus. The deceased was 21 years of age and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month as insurance agent. The claimants therefore filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. The appellant insurance company denied that the bus No. MH01-H-8990 was involved in the accident. The respondent insurance company further claimed that the compensation claimed by the claimants was excessive and exorbitant. 6. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the claimants as well as by the appellant insurance company, the Tribunal has recorded a specific finding that the BEST bus no. MH-01-H-8990 owned by the appellant Corporation was involved in the accident. It is also held that the said accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said bus. The Tribunal observed that the deceased was working as an Insurance Agent and relying upon the bank statement, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal added 50% of the established income towards future prospects and further deduced 50% towards personal expenses, and applying multiplier of 18 computed loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.10,53,000/-. The Tribunal observed that the deceased was working as an Insurance Agent and relying upon the bank statement, considered the income of the deceased as Rs.6,500/- per month. The Tribunal added 50% of the established income towards future prospects and further deduced 50% towards personal expenses, and applying multiplier of 18 computed loss of dependency to the tune of Rs.10,53,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded 40% towards loss of love and affection and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses, and thus awarded total compensation of Rs.11,08,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the appellant Corporation has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Mr.Misra, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the first information report given on the same date did not mention the number of the vehicle, and in fact the crime was registered against an unknown person. He submits that the driver of the said bus was arrested only after a period of six months. He further submits that the driver has been acquitted by the criminal court on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the involvement of the said bus in the accident. He further submits that the evidence adduced before the Tribunal also does not prove the involvement of the said vehicle in the said accident. 8. On the question of quantum of compensation, he submits that the claimants had failed to prove that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. He submits that the Tribunal was not justified in considering the income of the deceased as Rs.6500/- for the purpose of computing loss of dependency. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive. 9. Shri Mendon, the learned Counsel for the Claimants submits that the issue of rashness and negligence is required to be decided on preponderance of probabilities. He submits that neither the Tribunal nor this Court is bound by the judgment of the Criminal Court in deciding this issue. He submits that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the BEST Bus belonging to the appellant Corporation was involved in the accident. He submits that the mere fact that the number of the bus or the name of the driver was not mentioned in the FIR would not be a ground to disbelieve the case set up by the claimants. 10. He submits that the mere fact that the number of the bus or the name of the driver was not mentioned in the FIR would not be a ground to disbelieve the case set up by the claimants. 10. The learned Counsel for the claimants further submit that the Tribunal has considered the bank statement of the deceased in determining his monthly income. He submits that the Tribunal has not committed any error in determining loss of dependency. He further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards loss of estate. He submits that as per the judgment of the Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram,2018 SCC 1546, the claimants being the parents would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.80,000/- towards filial consortium. 11. I have perused the records and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 12. It is not in dispute that the son of the claimants had expired due to the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident at Mahul Pada Road, Mahul Village, Chembur. It is in evidence that on the relevant date i.e. 16.4.2014 while the deceased was proceeding towards Mahul Village, a bus dashed against his motorcycle and fled away from the spot of the accident. The evidence of AW2 Mr. Vasant Nagrale, who at the relevant time was attached to RCF Police Station as PSI, indicates that on receipt of the information he registered C.R.No. 92 of 2006 against an unknown person. He had prepared spot panchanama and recorded statements of witnesses. The investigation revealed that the BEST bus which was plying on bus route no.361 had dashed the motorcycle and had fled away from the spot of the accident. Subsequent investigation was conducted by PSI Shantanu Pawar. The evidence of this witness also indicates that witness Shashikala had informed him that BEST bus-plying on route no. 361 had dashed against the motor cycle. 13. It is trite that a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence. Nevertheless, it has to be borne in mind that proceedings under Section 166 of M.V. Act are neither governed by the Criminal Procedure Code nor are in the nature of a civil suit. In such proceedings very often it is not possible for the claimants to adduce strict proof of the accident. Nevertheless, it has to be borne in mind that proceedings under Section 166 of M.V. Act are neither governed by the Criminal Procedure Code nor are in the nature of a civil suit. In such proceedings very often it is not possible for the claimants to adduce strict proof of the accident. In such a situation the Tribunal is required to take holistic view of the matter, keeping in mind that the claimants are required to prove their case only on the touchstone of proponderence of probability. 14. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shila Datta & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 86 a Three Judge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court while considering the nature of the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 has observed that the rules of pleadings do not strictly apply to such proceeding. Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversial litigation. The Apex Court has further emphasized that in deciding claim petition, the Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. 15. In the instant case, the evidence of AW2 Shantanu Pawar that in the course of the investigation, he had recorded statements of the witnesses. The investigation revealed that the BEST bus belonging to the Corporation, bearing no.MH-01-H-8990 was involved in the accident and accordingly chargesheet came to be filed against the driver of the Bus No.MH-01-H-8990 for driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and causing death of the motorcyclist due to his rash and negligent act. Filing of the chargesheet against the driver Somnath Kharat prima facie proves the involvement of the vehicle and his complicity in driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 16. The driver of the bus who was examined by the appellant Corporation has admitted that he was on duty on the relevant date and time on the same route. The driver has deposed that some other BEST buses of the Corporation were also plying on the same route. Which were these other buses plying on the said route, is a matter which was within the knowledge of the Corporation. The Corporation has not disclosed the details of these other buses plying on the said route and has not claimed that any other bus belonging to the Corporation was involved in the accident. Which were these other buses plying on the said route, is a matter which was within the knowledge of the Corporation. The Corporation has not disclosed the details of these other buses plying on the said route and has not claimed that any other bus belonging to the Corporation was involved in the accident. This being the case, the mere fact that the number of the bus was not mentioned in the FIR cannot be a reason to absolve the Corporation. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere or reverse the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the factum of involvement of bus no.MH-01-H-8990 and on the issue of rashness and negligence. 17. It is true that the driver of the said bus has been acquitted by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the involvement of the bus No.MH-01-H-8990 in the said accident. A plain perusal of the said judgment indicates that the prosecution had examined only one witness, apart from the Investigating Officer. The learned Magistrate has observed that the other witnesses were not available and there being no evidence to show the involvement of the said bus in the accident, the learned Magistrate had acquitted the accused of offence under Section 279 & 304A IPC. Suffice it to say that the fact that the prosecution was unable to secure presence of the witnesses and prove the involvement of the bus in criminal trial cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. It has to be borne in mind that the standard of proof in criminal case is that of proof beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the standard of proof in such proceedings is preponderance of probabilities. Hence, acquittal of the driver in the criminal case is of no consequence in deciding the issue and assessing the liability in respect of the motor vehicle cases. 18. As regards the quantum of compensation, the evidence on record indicates that the deceased was 21 years of age. The deceased was a B. Com Graduate and was working as an insurance agent for the insurance company - Viva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Though the claimants had asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, they were unable to prove the said fact. The deceased was a B. Com Graduate and was working as an insurance agent for the insurance company - Viva Life Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. Though the claimants had asserted that the deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, they were unable to prove the said fact. Nevertheless, they had produced a bank statement which clearly indicates that amount varying from 3639 to 6292/- was deposited in the UTI Bank account of the deceased for the period from 1.11.2005 to 31.5.2006. This fact sufficiently proves that the deceased was employed and was earning his livelihood. Considering the age of the deceased, his qualification and the nature of the employment the Tribunal has considered his monthly income as Rs.6500/-, which in my considered view is neither excessive nor exorbitant. 19. As regards future prospects, the records reveal that taking note of this the Tribunal has added 50% of the established ioncome for the purpose of determination of multiplicand. It is pertinent to note that the deceased did not have a permanent job. Hence, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 , while determining the income, the Tribunal ought to have added 40% of the established income. Considering the income of the deceased as Rs.6500/- and adding 40% towards future prospects, the income works out to Rs.9100/-. The deceased was a bachelor and 50% has to be deducted as his personal expenses. Upon deduction of 50%, the income works out to Rs.4500/-. Thus, the annual income of the deceased works out to Rs.54,600/-. Considering the age of the deceased and applying the appropriate multiplier of 18, loss of dependency works out to Rs.9,82,800/-. The deceased was unmarried and the claimants who are his parents have been deprived of love and affection of their son. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in Magma (supra) the claimants would be entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- each towards loss of filial consortium. In addition, the claimants would also be entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,92,800/- which can be rounded to Rs.10,93,000/-. The judgment and award needs to be modified to that extent. 20. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. In addition, the claimants would also be entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.10,92,800/- which can be rounded to Rs.10,93,000/-. The judgment and award needs to be modified to that extent. 20. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. It is held that the appellant Corporation is liable to pay to the claimants compensation of Rs.10,93,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % from the date of the application till final realization. The excess amount of Rs. 16,000/- deposited by the appellant Corporation with proportionate interest accrued thereon be refunded to the Corporation. The claimants are at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for withdrawal of the amount. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Civil application, if any, stands disposed of in view of disposal of the appeal.