JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is against the Judgment of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha, dt.8.6.2017 in M.A.C.P. No.116 of 2015. Respondent nos. 1 to 3/legal heirs of deceased filed Claim Petition alleging that the deceased was proceeding in the auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.MH-32/C-6836 along with other labourers. At 10.15 a.m. when the said auto-rickshaw was proceeding on Pulgaon-Arvi road, one Indigo Car bearing registration no.MH-32/CN-2979 being driven by Original non-applicant no.1/Respondent no.4 herein in a rash and negligent manner and in excessive speed came from Arvi and gave a forceful dash to the autorickshaw from front side. Deceased Prabha sustained serious injuries. She was admitted in Sawangi (Meghe) hospital, where she died during treatment. Offence was registered against the driver of offending Indigo Car bearing registration No.MH-32/CN-2979. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 filed Claim Petition. The appellant/Insurance Company and owner and driver of the offending vehicle appeared in the said Claim Petition and filed their respective Written Statements. The learned Claim Tribunal framed issues and after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Indigo Car. The Indigo Car was insured with the appellant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.8,89,520/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till realisation of the whole amount including amount of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company. 2. Heard Mr.V.P.Maldhure, learned Counsel for the appellant. He has submitted that the auto-rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling was in a high speed and was driven in a rash and negligent manner. There was collusion between two vehicles and therefore, there was contributory negligence. Learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration defence raised by the appellant/Insurance Company. If contributory negligence is taken into consideration, then amount of compensation is to be paid by the Insurance Company and driver of the auto-rickshaw in the ratio of 50 : 50. The learned Counsel submitted that, in the autorickshaw, there were more than three passengers. It is breach of permit condition and therefore, the accident took place At last, it is prayed to allow the appeal. 3. Mr.Mahesh Rai, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 has pointed out the impugned Judgment and submitted that, in para nos. The learned Counsel submitted that, in the autorickshaw, there were more than three passengers. It is breach of permit condition and therefore, the accident took place At last, it is prayed to allow the appeal. 3. Mr.Mahesh Rai, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 has pointed out the impugned Judgment and submitted that, in para nos. 13 and 14 therein, the Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Indigo Car insured with the appellant/Insurance Company. He further submitted that there was no any fault on the part of said auto-rickshaw driver. Hence, the impugned Judgment is perfectly legal and correct. 4. Mr.S.K.Bhoyar, learned Counsel for respondent no.4 has supported the submissions of learned Counsel Mr.Rai. 5. Mr.V.P.Maldhure, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that, at the time of accident, there were five passengers sitting in the auto-rickshaw and therefore, the accident took place. It cannot be said that only because there were more passengers than permitted in the auto-rickshaw, therefore, the accident took place. If it was so, then the Police Authorities definitely would have taken action against the driver of the auto-rickshaw for the offence punishable under Section 192 of the Motor Vehicle Act for breach of permit condition by carrying more passengers than permitted. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Indigo Car driver. He was prosecuted by police for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The proceedings under Sections 163 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. Detail evidence is not required in Summary proceedings. Substance of evidence is to be recorded by the Courts in Summary proceedings. The documents filed on record before the Claims Tribunal i.e. F.I.R., Spot Panchanama etc. show that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending car which was insured by the appellant/Insurance Company. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Wardha has rightly recorded its findings holding that the driver of the Car was negligent while driving the said offending vehicle. Hence, there is no any infirmity or illegality in the impugned Judgment. In that view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.