JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants-original claimants have filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 28.6.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Auxi), Vadodara (“the Tribunal” for short) in MACP No.2245/1999 insofar as the same is against the appellants. 2. The Tribunal decided MACP No.2245/1999 along with MACP No.2246/1999 which was filed by Aminbhai Amesing Mahida against the respondent No.4 herein Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (“GSRTC” for short) for injuries sustained by him in the accident. Both the claim petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal by common judgment and award dated 28.6.2006. 3. Brief facts of the case of are as under: 3.1 On 18.10.1999, daughter of the appellants Reshmaben Mahida aged about 8 years was travelling on a scooter bearing registration No.G.J.6.D.6391 along with her uncle Aminbhai Amesing Mahida and at around 16:10 hours, near the traffic signal at Shantadevi Nursing Home at Vadodara, the scooter was stationed as the traffic signal was closed. At that time one ST bus driven by the driver of respondent no.4 Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (“GSRTC” for short) came and dashed the scooter from behind by driving the bus rashly and negligently. Due to such accident, Reshmaben and her uncle fell down from the scooter and Reshmaben came under the wheel of the ST bus, whereas the uncle of Reshmaben, Aminbhai Mahida suffered serious injuries on the right hand. Both Reshmaben and her uncle Aminbhai were taken to SSG hospital, Vadodara. Reshmaben was declared brought dead by the doctor. Reshmaben was studying in classIII and it was the case of the appellants that she was brilliant in her studies. She would have taken care of the appellants in future. The appellants therefore, claimed Rs. 3 lakhs by way of compensation from respondent no.1uncle of Reshmaben and respondent no.2 owner of the scooter Dineshbhai Shah, respondent no.3 insurance company of the scooter and respondent no.4 GSRTC. 3.2 On service of notices, respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 filed written statements at Exhs. 32, 26 and 24 respectively. The appellants therefore, claimed Rs. 3 lakhs by way of compensation from respondent no.1uncle of Reshmaben and respondent no.2 owner of the scooter Dineshbhai Shah, respondent no.3 insurance company of the scooter and respondent no.4 GSRTC. 3.2 On service of notices, respondents no. 2, 3 and 4 filed written statements at Exhs. 32, 26 and 24 respectively. Respondent no.2owner of the scooter has stated in his written statement that late Reshmaben was travelling as a pillion rider along with her uncle and when the traffic signal was closed, one ST bus whose number is not known dashed with the scooter due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus,. Respondent no.3 insurance company in its written statement has stated that the ST bus was responsible for the accident, and therefore, respondent no.4 is liable for payment of compensation. Respondent no.4 in its written statement at Exh.24 denied the facts as gotup denying the involvement of ST Bus in the accident and submitted that the scooter is also responsible for the said accident and, therefore, amount of compensation is also required to be paid by the insurance company of the scooter. 3.3 The Tribunal framed the issues at Exh.35 to the effect that whether the deceased died due to injuries on account of rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of the vehicle in the accident and what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from which opponents. 3.4 The Tribunal at the first instance decided the liability on part of the driver and the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the panchnama of the place of the accident at Exh.43 and FIR bearing No. CR No.I342/ 1999 filed by respondent No.1 at Exh.42, has come to the conclusion that there is no evidence showing the registration number of the ST bus which was involved in the accident and who was driving the bus, nor the police has been able to find out with regard to the driver of the bus involved in the accident. The Tribunal has taken into consideration 'A' summary report filed by the police at Exh.39. On consideration of the panchnama, the Tribunal found that there was no marks of blood at the place of the accident, nor has anything been recovered from the place of the accident. The Tribunal has taken into consideration 'A' summary report filed by the police at Exh.39. On consideration of the panchnama, the Tribunal found that there was no marks of blood at the place of the accident, nor has anything been recovered from the place of the accident. The Tribunal, therefore, held that respondent no.4 GSRTC is not liable for the accident in absence of disclosure of registration number of ST bus or the name of the driver. The Tribunal also relied upon the documentary evidence produced by respondent no.4 GSRTC at Exh. 60 to 65 which is correspondence between the GSRTC and the police officer who was investigating the case. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the liability of the owner of the scooter and the driver of the scooter involved in the accident. The Tribunal held that in absence of driving license produced by respondent No.1 on record, insurance company of the scooter is not liable for compensation to be paid to the appellants. The Tribunal therefore, exonerated respondents No.3 and 4 and held that the driver and the owner of the scooter i.e. respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation. 3.5 The Tribunal thereafter, decided the compensation to be paid to the appellants by taking into consideration notional income of Rs.1500/- per month and after deducting 2/3rd there from, considered Rs.1000/- per month towards the future loss and applying multiplier of 17, awarded Rs. 2,04,000/- ( Rs.1000x12x17) towards future loss of income. The Tribunal further awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5000/- towards pain, shock and suffering. The Tribunal therefore, awarded Rs. 2,14,000/- , in all, as just compensation to the appellants to be recovered from respondent No.1 and 2 with 9% interest per annum and the proportionate cost. 4. Heard Mr. Moshin Hakim learned advocate for the appellants, Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate for respondent No.3 and Ms. Monali Bhatt learned advocate for respondent No.4. Rule is already served upon respondents No.1 and 2. 5. Mr. Moshin Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the driver of the scooter respondent No.1 filed the FIR at Exh.42 immediately on the date of the accident i.e. on 18.10.1999 before Raopura police station, Vadodara city, wherein, he had categorically described the manner in which the accident had taken place. 5. Mr. Moshin Hakim, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the driver of the scooter respondent No.1 filed the FIR at Exh.42 immediately on the date of the accident i.e. on 18.10.1999 before Raopura police station, Vadodara city, wherein, he had categorically described the manner in which the accident had taken place. He had stated that on 18.10.1999 when he was standing at the traffic signal at Maharani Nursing Home, with his niece Reshmaben as pillion rider, at around 4:00 pm, one ST bus whose number was not known to him came and dashed with the scooter from behind and as a result thereof, Reshmaben fell down from the scooter and the wheel of the bus ran over Reshmaben. Immediately thereafter, he took her to SSG Hospital where she was declared brought dead. In the panchnama at Exh. 43 and FIR at Exh.42, it was stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ST bus. He further submitted that as the driver of the bus was not available, the case was closed and 'A' summary report at Exh.39, was filed by the police under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. The learned advocate for the appellants submitted that there is no reason not to believe the first version of respondent No.1 who has lodged the complaint on the same day before the police for the accident wherein the young daughter of the appellants died. Appellant No.1 has also filed his affidavit corroborating the facts stated in the complaint. Moreover, it is submitted that one Gordhanbhai Makwana, Divisional Transport Superintendent at Exh.59 who has filed the affidavit on behalf of respondent No.4, was not knowing about the accident or about the departmental inquiry with regard to the said accident. Learned advocate relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corpo. v. Bharvad Ghela Deva and others reported in (1983) 20 GLT 105, wherein the Division Bench of this Court in similar facts has dismissed the appeal filed by GSRTC by holding that the Corporation failed to lead evidence of the driver and the conductor of the bus to establish that they were not involved in the accident. v. Bharvad Ghela Deva and others reported in (1983) 20 GLT 105, wherein the Division Bench of this Court in similar facts has dismissed the appeal filed by GSRTC by holding that the Corporation failed to lead evidence of the driver and the conductor of the bus to establish that they were not involved in the accident. In the said case, the evidence of the Traffic Controller who was working at the material time at Surendranagar bus station was read over, which was highly intriguing and unsatisfactory. The court therefore, held that if the accident takes place, it would be noted in the register but the register in question was missing and the officer also deposed that the police had visited Surendranagar bus station on the next day and questioned him. The court therefore, came to the conclusion that the Corporation cannot escape the liability on the ground that the passenger bus involved in the accident was not owned by it. Learned advocate further relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Laxmibai (SMT) v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn, Bangalore. In similar facts, the Supreme Court held thus : “6. The Tribunal found that the respondent did not produce copies of the logsheet and control charts to show that the bus in question was not plied on that road on the date of the accident and the said bus was not involved. Thus on a proper appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal was quite justified in recording a finding that the said bus was involved in the accident. But we find that the approach of the High Court was wrong in appreciating the evidence inasmuch as it was technical and thrust was on niceties.” 5.1 However, in the facts of the present case, learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred in appreciating the evidence on record by exonerating respondent No.4 from the liability of payment of compensation. He therefore, submitted that respondent No.4 should be made liable to pay the compensation. He therefore, submitted that respondent No.4 should be made liable to pay the compensation. 5.2 With regard to the amount of compensation, learned advocate placed reliance upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others reported in (2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 244 and submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation under the head of future loss of income by considering the notional income of Rs. 30,000/- and multiplier of 15 ought to have been considered and therefore, compensation of Rs. 4,50,000/- should have been awarded. He further submitted that as per the aforesaid decision Rs.50,000/- under the conventional head towards loss of love and affection, future expenses, last rites etc. ought to have been considered. He relied upon the following observations of the said judgment : “The relevant portion of clause No.6 states as under: “6. Notional income for compensation to those who had no income prior to accident:- (a) Non-earning persons – Rs.15,000/- p. a.” The aforesaid clause of the Second Schedule to Section 163A of the M.V. Act, is considered by this Court in the case of Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., while examining the tortuous liability of the tortfeasor has examined the criteria for awarding compensation for death of children in accident between age group of 10 to 15 years and held in the above case that the compensation shall be awarded taking the contribution of the children to the family at Rs.12,000/- p. a. and multiplier 11 has been applied taking the age of the father and then under the conventional heads the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,57,000/- was awarded in that case.” 6. On the other hand, Ms. Monali Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent no.4 GSRTC submitted that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim petition against the GSRTC, as the findings recorded by the Tribunal are based on the facts and evidence on record and on consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal has held that there is no liability of respondent No.4GSRTC. Learned advocate further submitted that under section l66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the involvement or negligence of the vehicle involved in the accident. Learned advocate further submitted that under section l66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove the involvement or negligence of the vehicle involved in the accident. It was submitted that the appellants have failed to establish the involvement of the S.T. Bus. Reliance was also placed on the written statement filed by the respondent No.4 at Exh.24, wherein all the contentions raised in the claim petition are denied. With regard to FIR at Exh.42 relied upon by the appellants, it was submitted that the complainant did not mention the ST bus number or the name of the driver of the S.T. bus who allegedly dashed the bus with the scooter. Referring to the panchnama of the place of the accident, it was submitted that from the noting it appears that there was no mark of blood at the place of the accident nor any other thing was recovered by the police from the place of the accident. It was further submitted that the FIR at Exh. 42 and Panchnama at Exh.43 clearly shows that the time of incident was 4 pm. It was a day time, on public road, with heavy traffic and there is a traffic point near the place of the accident. It was therefore, submitted that if any such accident would have happened involving the S.T. bus, it is highly impossible that the driver of the bus would run away and nobody would notice even the bus number. It was further submitted that there was no wheel marks of ST bus on the road, nor there was any blood mark found on the road as per the panchnama at Exh.43. Learned advocate further submitted that the police has investigated the said FIR and after investigation, the police has closed the investigation and filed 'A' Summary report at Exh. 39 on 10.12.1999 as no S.T. bus or bus driver was found involved in the accident and the learned Magistrate has granted such Summary report on 21.3.2000 with a condition to continue the investigation. 39 on 10.12.1999 as no S.T. bus or bus driver was found involved in the accident and the learned Magistrate has granted such Summary report on 21.3.2000 with a condition to continue the investigation. It was further submitted that the respondent No.1 scooter driver was examined at Exh.47, wherein he has stated in his examinationinchief that one red colour city bus has dashed with the scooter, whereas in his crossexamination he has stated that there are two signals at 200300 feet distance on Road and at the time of incident, there was heavy traffic on road and he was not able to say the vehicle number of S.T. bus. On the basis of such deposition, it was submitted that the State Transport bus is wrongly involved in the alleged incident. Reference was also made to the deposition of witness Gordhanbhai D. Makwana, Asst. Traffic Superintendent of GSRTC, Vadodara at Exh.59, who stated that there are specific instructions given to the driver and the conductor of the GSRTC that whenever there is an accident involving S.T. bus, they have to lodge a complaint in the nearest police station and inform the concerned officer. Reference was placed to the deposition of this witness to demonstrate that the claim petition of the claimant is not true and no such accident had happened involving the S.T. bus. In the said deposition, it was stated that the inquiry was made by him with regard to the accident from the driver and the conductor who were travelling on the ST bus on 18.10.1999 and during such inquiry it was found that no such accident had taken place. Learned advocate further relied upon the documentary evidence at Exhs.60 to 65 which are correspondence between the Raopura police station and GSRTC, to show that ST bus of respondent no.4GSRTC is falsely involved in the accident which had taken place on 18.10.1999. It was further submitted that there is no report of any accident in the record of GSRTC. It was also submitted that the appellants did not make any grievance before the Tribunal that GSRTC did not provide records or details of the S.T. bus or its driver. Learned advocate submitted that no application for discovery of documents was filed by the appellants and therefore, the same were not provided by GSRTC before the Tribunal. It was also submitted that the appellants did not make any grievance before the Tribunal that GSRTC did not provide records or details of the S.T. bus or its driver. Learned advocate submitted that no application for discovery of documents was filed by the appellants and therefore, the same were not provided by GSRTC before the Tribunal. It was further submitted that when the independent police agency after thorough investigation, reported that ST bus or its driver is not found in the alleged accident and 'A' summary report is granted by the learned Magistrate, no adverse inference can be drawn against the respondent no.4GSRTC. It was further submitted that GSRTC is falsely involved in the alleged accident to get compensation. It was further submitted that the insurance company has not granted the claim, though scooter was insured and hence, false claim petition is filed against GSRTC, which is rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It is therefore, submitted that the appeal is devoid of merits and therefore, be dismissed. 6.1 Learned advocate also relied upon the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in case of APSRTC, Rep By its Vice Chairman, Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. R.Battaiah reported in 2004(1) AndhWR 56 wherein Andhra Pradesh High Court, in facts of the said case, taking into consideration the specific version of the Corporation that there was no accident with the bus as alleged by the petitioner and there was no bus plying on the alleged route; that there was no criminal case filed against the driver in connection with the accident, held that the Tribunal erred in accepting the evidence regarding the manner of accident unmindful of the contradictions and improvements made by the witnesses from time to time in such case. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the material placed before it and commenting that the respondent failed to produce the other records. The court therefore, held that the petitioner failed to prove the accident occurred with the bus of the respondent corporation. 7. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the material placed before it and commenting that the respondent failed to produce the other records. The court therefore, held that the petitioner failed to prove the accident occurred with the bus of the respondent corporation. 7. On careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence as well as submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it is not in dispute that the complaint at Exh.42 was registered by respondent No.1 on the date of the accident itself i.e. on 18.10.1999 wherein it was categorically stated that the ST bus hit the scooter from back and due to such accident, Reshmaben fell down from the scooter and was crushed under the wheels of the ST bus. However, registration number of ST bus was not known and therefore, same was not disclosed in the FIR. It is true that neither the registration number of ST bus, nor has the identity of the driver been established. However, it cannot be overlooked that the accident occurred in the broad day light at about 4:00 pm and the ST bus was involved in the accident did not halt after the accident. Circumstantial evidence clearly shows the involvement of the ST bus of respondent No.4 in the accident. The consistent version of respondent No.1, driver of the scooter has been that the accident was caused as a result of the bus hitting the standing scooter from behind and crushing Reshmaben under its wheel. In the FIR also the fact about involvement of ST bus in the accident is recorded. However, on behalf of the ST bus of respondent No.4, no evidence was led by producing on record to rebut the say of the appellants that ST bus was involved in the accident and has also failed to lead evidence of driver to establish that ST bus was not involved in the accident. The evidence of Gordhanbhai D. Makwana, Asst. Traffic Superintendent of GSRTC, Vadodara at Exh.59 is also highly unsatisfactory as he has deposed that he could not remember the relevant facts about the said accident. In his cross examination, he has stated that he was not on duty when the accident took place on 18.10.1999, nor was he aware about any of the facts of the accident. He has not gone at the place of the accident. In his cross examination, he has stated that he was not on duty when the accident took place on 18.10.1999, nor was he aware about any of the facts of the accident. He has not gone at the place of the accident. He has admitted that when the accident took place, the buses of the respondent no.4 were plying on the said route for about 10 to 11 hours and such plying of bus continued even on the date of deposition. He has admitted that it is true that who were the drivers and conductors of the said route is not known to him. He has also admitted that he has not inquired with regard to the accident from the drivers and the conductors of that date as to who was plying the ST bus on the route. He has admitted that his Assistant had informed him that no such accident had taken place involving ST bus. He has further admitted that who was the driver or conductor of the ST bus who plied on the route on that day can be verified from the control chart. He had admitted that on the basis of the documents, he is stating that no accident has taken place involving the ST bus. Thus from the deposition as well as crossexamination of respondent No.4 it appears that respondent No.4 GSRTC has failed to lead the evidence of the driver and conductor of the bus who plied the bus on the route on the date of the accident to establish that they were not involved in the accident. 8. As far as the onus of proof on part of the appellants is concerned, the same is duly discharged as at the first instance, as it was stated before the police that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the ST bus. The Supreme Court in case of N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd v. M. Karumai Ammal and others etc. reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354 has issued guidelines to Claim Tribunals to take sufficient care to see that innocent victim do not suffer and those guidelines are as follows : (i) The Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. (ii) Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. (iii) The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. The heavy economic impact to culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighborhood. Indeed the State must seriously consider nofault liability by legislation 9. Moreover, the Supreme Court in case of Laxmibai (SMT) (supra) has in similar facts held that though the Tribunal found that the respondent did not produce copies of logsheet and control charts to show that the bus in question was not plied on that road on the date of the accident and the said bus was not involved, however, on proper appreciation of evidence, Tribunal was justified in recording the finding that the said bus was involved in the accident and therefore, the evidence on record cannot be ignored being technical or on niceties. It was further held that there were both oral and documentary evidence supporting the case of the appellant and that the High Court clearly committed an error in reversing the judgment of the Tribunal particularly, when respondent GSRTC withheld the documentary evidence in its possession. In the facts of the present case, in view of forgoing reasons, the Tribunal has committed an error by holding that the evidence on record failed to establish that the bus owned by respondent No.4GSRTC was not involved in the accident and therefore GSRTC-respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation to the appellants and the findings of the Tribunal is reversed in that regard. 10. With regard to amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, taking into consideration age of the deceased Reshmaben of 8 years at the time of accident, the tribunal has awarded just compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- and no interference is called for. 11. The respondent No.4GSRTC shall deposit the amount of compensation of Rs.2,14,0000/- with 9% interest from the date of application till realization and proportionate cost within eight weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, shall disburse the same as per the terms of its final award, as rest of the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered. The appeal is therefore, allowed partly to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Records and Proceedings of the case be sent back forthwith.