JUDGMENT : These two miscellaneous first appeals arise out of the judgment and award in MVC No.1323/2011, therefore, these matters are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The appeal filed by the claimants seeks enhancement of the compensation, while the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company raises a ground regarding contributory negligence in addition to challenge raised to the quantum of award. 2. The undisputed facts leading to the filing of the claim petition is that on 11.11.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased Namadev was proceeding on his motor cycle and dashed against a stationed Container vehicle bearing Reg.No.MH04/F2977, on the hind side. The deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. It was contended by the claimants, who are the aged parents, wife and three children, that the deceased was serving in the Agricultural Department and was earning salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal having considered the evidence on record, held that the deceased was earning gross salary of Rs.17,545/and after deduction of the professional tax, he was earning Rs.17,345/. Having regard to the age of the deceased who was 45 years at the time of the unfortunate accident, applied multiplier of ‘14’, deducted 1/5th of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased having regard to the fact that the deceased was taking care of his aged parents, wife and three children. 30% of the income was added additionally towards future prospects. Towards the other conventional heads a sum of Rs.1,10,000/was awarded. 3. Since the Insurance Company has raised the issue of contributory negligence, we shall proceed to deal with the said issue before dwelling upon the issue regarding enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Container was parked to the extreme left side of the highway at a distance of 200 meters from SIMCO Company. He further submits that the Tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence of PW2 on the ground that he is not an eyewitness, even according to the statement made at Ex.R2, before the Investigating Officer that he received a call at about 1.45 a.m. regarding the accident and he rushed to the hospital and therefore it is clear that he had not witnessed the accident. The learned counsel submits that as per the spot panchanama marked at Ex.P5, translated and marked as Ex.P6, the width of the road was 25 feet and on either side there was 5 feet of kacha road. Having regard to the width of the vehicle, it is clear that the vehicle was parked to the extreme left side on the kacha road and probably, a portion of the vehicle was on the tar road. It is further submitted that the FIR shows that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler and after police investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the deceased rider of the two wheeler. The learned counsel further submits that the vehicle was parked on the extreme left side with the indicators on and all precautions were taken by the driver of the vehicle. 4. Having made these factual submissions, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that when the Tribunal rightly discarded the testimony of PW2 and having found that the FIR and charge sheet named the rider of the two wheeler as the offender, the natural conclusion should have been that the deceased had contributed towards the accident. In this regard the learned counsel places reliance on the following decisions: (i) Oriental Insurance Company limited vs. Premlata Shukla and others (2007) 13 SCC 476 (ii) Rajrani and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company limited (2009) ACJ 2003 (SC) (iii) New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited IV (2013) ACC 54 (DB) (Kar) (iv) Jumani Begum Vs. Ram Narayan and others 2019 SCC Online SC 1707 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the appellant-claimants would submit that even as per the spot panchanama Exs.P5 and P6, it is clear that the vehicle was parked on the tar road. He further submits that no material has been placed on record to show that the indicator lights were put on. Moreover, it is submitted that the very fact that such a huge Container was parked on a road measuring 25 feet, on a highway, by itself shows that the driver of the Container was at fault. He further submits that no material has been placed on record to show that the indicator lights were put on. Moreover, it is submitted that the very fact that such a huge Container was parked on a road measuring 25 feet, on a highway, by itself shows that the driver of the Container was at fault. The learned counsel, therefore submits that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the onus is on the respondents, owner and driver of the offending vehicle to establish that the vehicle was parked in such a manner that it would not cause inconvenience to the other passing vehicles and that all precautions including parking indicators or lights or reflectors were used on the vehicle, in accordance with law. 6. On the question of quantum, the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would submit that the Tribunal has awarded meager compensation of Rs.50,000/towards loss of love and affection, Rs.10,000/towards loss of estate, Rs.30,000/towards loss of consortium, Rs.10,000/towards transportation and Rs.10,000 towards funeral expenses. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum, while it should have awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 7. Heard the learned counsels for the appellants-claimants and the respondent-Insurance Company, which has also preferred an appeal, while raising the issue of contributory negligence. Perused the memorandums of appeal and the original records. 8. We notice from the impugned judgment that the Tribunal has in fact rightly rejected the testimony of PW2 who claimed to be an eyewitness to the accident. However, having regard to the spot panchanama at Exs.P5 and P6, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the Container vehicle was not parked to the extreme left side of the road. The Tribunal has also rightly held that merely because the FIR and charge sheet is laid against the deceased rider of the two wheeler, it cannot be held that the accident occurred only because of his fault. Therefore, the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the evidence by taking all the material available on record, rather than jumping into a conclusion on the basis of the charge sheet. Therefore, the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the evidence by taking all the material available on record, rather than jumping into a conclusion on the basis of the charge sheet. While following the law governing burden of proof and onus, the Tribunal has held that the initial burden of proof lies on the claimants to prove that the motor accident occurred between the Container vehicle and the motor cycle of the deceased. In this regard, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal proceeds to hold that there was sufficient material, including the FIR registered at the instance of the driver of the Container vehicle that the deceased died consequent to the motor accident between his motor cycle and the Container vehicle. Thereafter, the Tribunal has held that the onus shifts upon the respondents to establish that the Container vehicle was parked on the road by putting all the parking indicators or lights or by taking all the precautions to alert other passers by, that the said vehicle has been parked on the road. 9. On the question of contributory negligence in matters where motor accidents have occurred involving stationed vehicles or parked vehicles, the Apex Court in one of the recent decisions in the case of Archit Saini and another vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 365 , has reiterated the legal position that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to rove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. Strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Moreover, it was held by the Apex Court that as per Rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989 no vehicle is to be parked on busy road. 10. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. Moreover, it was held by the Apex Court that as per Rule 15 of the Road Regulations, 1989 no vehicle is to be parked on busy road. 10. We also approve the opinion of the Tribunal that merely because the FIR and the charge sheet prepared by the Police indicates the deceased rider of the two wheeler as the offender, while considering a motor accidents claim, the person named as offender in the charge sheet cannot be held guilty or contributing to the accident, more so in a case where the FIR is registered on a complaint made by the driver of the stationed vehicle and while the rider of the motor cycle dies in the accident and when there is no other eyewitness to speak independently about the manner and occurrence of the accident. Under such circumstances, when one of the claimants and witness have made a specific allegation that the Container vehicle was parked on the tar road without putting the indicators on, it was for the respondents to lead evidence to the contrary. In this matter, even in the cross-examination of the petition witnesses, not even a suggestion is made that the vehicle was parked to the extreme left side of the road and that the indicators were put on, let alone leading evidence of the best person who could speak about these aspects viz., the driver of the Container vehicle. 11. For the above said reasons, we proceed to hold that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent-Insurance Company that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased rider of the two wheeler. 12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning gross salary of Rs.17,345/, based on the evidence on record. We are also of the opinion that the award of Rs.1,10,000/towards the other conventional heads is neither exorbitant nor meager, and therefore, needs no interference at the hands of this Court. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we approve with appreciation, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and proceed to dismiss both the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the Insurance Company. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we approve with appreciation, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and proceed to dismiss both the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the Insurance Company. No order as to costs.