JUDGMENT : H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.02.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chikkamagaluru. 2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 18.10.2014 at about 1-45 a.m. the deceased C.N.Amodh was driving a Maruthi Baleno, bearing registration No. KA/05MC-2216 and was proceeding to Channapatna from Hassan with his friends Likith R.Gowda, V.R.Varun, Vijay and Garuda. At that time, the first respondent being the driver of KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA19/F-2816, drove the said bus in a rash and negligent manner, from Channapatna Bypass road and in order to go to Hassan new bus stand without taking U turn, turned the bus to right and dashed against the car being driven by the deceased. Due to the impact, car got completely damaged and the deceased C.N.Amodh and other inmates of the car Likith R.Gowda, V.R.Varun and Vijay died on the spot and another inmate viz., Garuda sustained grievous injuries. After the accident the first respondent ran away from the spot without informing the police about the accident, thereafter the dead bodies of the deceased were shifted to Hassan Institute of Medical Science for postmortem. After the postmortem the dead body was taken to Chikkamaglur in an ambulance by the claimants wherein the obsequies were done. 3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 21 years at the time of accident and was doing his final year DPharma Course, besides education he was doing auto dealings and was looking after the medical business of his father, thereby he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m. The claimants being the parents of the deceased lost their tender and affectionate son. Hence, the claimants have filed this petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased himself. 4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased himself. It was further pleaded that the deceased had no driving licence to drive the car and inmates of the car had consumed alcohol as the liquor bottles were founding the said car, immediately after the accident the first respondent informed the jurisdictional police as well as the department about the accident. The driver of the bus lodged a complaint to the police, but they refused to register the case against the deceased as the relatives of the deceased have influenced the police, due to which the police have registered the case against the driver of the bus. However, on humanitarian consideration the Corporation paid a sum of Rs.15,000/to the relatives of the deceased. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.1 adopted the written statement filed by the respondent No.2 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 – father of the deceased as PW1 and one of the inmates as PW2 and got marked 18 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.18. On behalf of respondents, the driver of the bus was examined as RW1 as Nagaraj M.Naika and got exhibited 5 documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R.5. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.16,65,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. Being aggrieved, the Corporation has filed this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, but the Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that the driver of the KSRTC bus is negligent in causing the accident. 6. The learned counsel for the Corporation has raised the following contentions: Firstly, the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car, but the Tribunal has wrongly given a finding that the driver of the KSRTC bus is negligent in causing the accident. It is very clear from Ex.R1 to R5 that the driver of the car was supposed to be on the left side of the road, but he was on the extreme right side when the accident has occurred. Even the driver of the KSRTC bus who is RW1 in his statement has categorically stated that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and the same is very clear from IMV report - Ex.P7 and rough sketch at Ex.P9. Secondly, in respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, the deceased was a student and the claimants have not produced any document to prove that he was earning Rs.15,000/per month. Therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. The compensation granted under the conventional heads is on the higher side. Hence, she sought for allowing the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following counter-contentions: Firstly, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Immediately after the accident police have registered the FIR against the driver of the bus and after investigation charge sheet has been filed against him. It is very clear from the spot mahazar and IMV report that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence of the parties has rightly answered issue No.1 in the affirmative and held that the driver of the bus is responsible for the occurrence of the accident. Secondly, the deceased was aged about 21 years and he was student of final year D-Pharma Course, he was a bright student. Taking into consideration all these aspects the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. Taking into consideration all these aspects the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/-. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. 9. It is not in dispute that deceased died in the road traffic accident occurred involving the car and the KSRTC bus. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was driving the car and was proceeding to Channapatna from Hassan. At that time, the driver of the KSRTC bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner from Channapatna bypass road and in order to go to Hassan new bus stand without taking ‘U’ turn, turned the bus to his right and dashed against the car. Due to the impact the deceased suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. To prove the negligence of the driver of the bus the claimants have examined PW2 who is also an inmate of the car. He has specifically stated that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The police have registered FIR as per Ex.P3, drawn rough sketch as per Ex.P9. It is very clear from the mahazar and the sketch prepared by the police that the driver of the bus in order to go to Hassan new bus stand has suddenly turned the bus to the right side and dashed against the car. The police after thorough investigation have registered charge sheet against the driver of the bus. 10. In the cross-examination of PW2 respondents have not elicited any adverse information to disprove the evidence of the claimants. Except examining RW1, they have not examined any other independent witness. Even they have not produced any document to show that the driver of the bus has given a complaint against the driver of the car for negligence. 11. Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in the civil case. 11. Under the Motor Vehicles Act in the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal the standard of proof is much below than what is required in a criminal case as well as in the civil case. No doubt, before the Tribunal, there must be some material on the basis of which the Tribunal can arrive or decide things necessary to decide for awarding compensation, but the Tribunal is not expected to take or to adopt a nicety of a civil or criminal case. After all it is a summary enquiry and it is the legislation for the welfare of the Society. The proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are not akin to the proceedings under civil rules. Hence, strict rules of evidence are not required to be followed in this regard. In the case of MANGLA RAM(supra),the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as hereinbelow: “25. In Dulcina Fernandes, this Court examined similar situation where the evidence of claimant’s eyewitness was discarded by the Tribunal and that the respondent in that case was acquitted in the criminal case concerning the accident. This Court, however, opined that it cannot be overlooked that upon investigation of the case registered against the respondent, prima facie, materials showing negligence were found to put him on trial. The Court restated the settled principle that the evidence of the claimants ought to be examined by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.” 12. In view of the above, the Tribunal has rightly answered the issue No.(1) in the affirmative and held that the driver of the KSRTC bus is responsible for the occurrence of the accident. 13. In respect of quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was a bright student and he had a fair chance of getting a job if he was alive, has rightly considered the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. We do not see any reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the Tribunal and the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for interference. The amount in deposit before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal, forthwith. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.