JUDGMENT Rameshwar Vyas, J. - The instant appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (Afterwards referred to as 'RSRTC') for setting aside the award dated 1.3.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nohar in Motor Accident Claim Case No.17/2017 titled Pawan Kumar & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Anr. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- 3. Deceased Prabhat died in a road accident on 1.2.2016. He was driver of the Pick-up bearing Registration No. RJ07-G-6924. He was going from Thaladka to Nohar. Roadways Bus bearing Registration No. RJ22-PA-1297 driven by Mahaveer Prasad, rashly and negligently, hit the Pick-up. As a result of which, Prabhat sustained injuries and died on the spot. 4. Deceased was aged 28 years and was sole owner of the Departmental Store and earning Rs.30,000/- per month. Claimants claimed Rs.2,12,64,000/- with interest @ 18% from the driver and owner of the Bus, RSRTC. 5. During trial, Rekha wife of the deceased AW-1, eyewitness Madan Lal AW-2, Pawan Kumar AW-3 and father of the deceased Pawan Kumar AW4, were produced on behalf of the claimants. Driver and conductor of the Bus Mahaveer Prasad NAW-1 and Balveer NAW-2 were produced for non-claimants in the Court. Total 18 documents were exhibited by the claimants during the trial. After conducting inquiry, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.11,84,409/- with interest @ 6% per annum. 6. As per judgment, negating the plea of the non-claimants regarding contributory negligence of the deceased, learned Tribunal fastened the whole liability on the appellant/non-claimants. 7. The income of the deceased was ascertained taking into consideration the minimum wages of unskilled labour as Rs.5,226/- per month. Multiplier of 17 was applied for calculating the loss of dependency. Looking to the number of dependents, 1/4 amount was deducted from the annual income towards personal expenses. Total Rs.65,000/- were awarded in conventional heads. 8. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Tribunal erred in negating the contention of non-claimants regarding contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident. As per the site plan and evidence available on record, the accident took place in the mid of road. Total Rs.65,000/- were awarded in conventional heads. 8. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant contended that learned Tribunal erred in negating the contention of non-claimants regarding contributory negligence of the deceased in the accident. As per the site plan and evidence available on record, the accident took place in the mid of road. On the fateful day, on account of poor visibility due to fog, Pick-up driver failed to see the Bus coming from the opposite side and collided with the Bus while Pick-up was trying to overtake the Tractor. Hence, the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased. The driver of the Bus was not responsible for the accident occurred. Learned Tribunal has seriously erred in accepting the evidence produced in support of the claimants and discarding the evidence of the driver and conductor of the Bus. 9. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant does not press the other grounds raised in the appeal. 10. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of roadways Bus. The deceased was not at fault. Learned Tribunal did not commit any error in rejecting the evidence produced by the non-claimants. Accident could have been avoided by the roadways Bus driver. In the above circumstances, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that learned Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence produced by the non-claimants in reasonable and proper manner. The impugned judgment reveals that more weightage was given to the statement of father and wife of the deceased, who were not present at the spot at the time of accident, in comparison to the evidence of driver and conductor of the Bus, while deciding the issue of rash and negligent driving of the Bus. Learned Tribunal has also heavily relied upon the report filed by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., whereby the charge-sheet against the Bus driver was filed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. 12. Learned Tribunal has also heavily relied upon the report filed by the Police under Section 173 Cr.P.C., whereby the charge-sheet against the Bus driver was filed under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A IPC. 12. After perusal of the charge-sheet (Exhibit-3), it reveals that Police did not furnish any reason in filing charge-sheet against the Bus driver alone, though, as per site plan this accident took place in the mid of the road, however, Police failed to give details regarding the manner in which both the vehicles were collided with each other. 13. As per site plan, the Bus was going from East to West, whereas, Pick-up was coming from West to East. The place of accident was marked as ?X? in the site plan, which is in the center of the road. As per statement of the roadways Bus driver, Pick-up driver while driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner overtook the Tractor and came in the wrong side and dashed with Bus on account of which, driver of Bus lost the control and the Bus went off the road. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion put up by the claimants to rebut his version. 14. In the same way, conductor of the Bus attributed negligence to the Pick-up driver. 15. Claimants produced two eyewitnesses Madan Lal AW-2 and Pawan Kumar AW-3. They made vague statement that Pick-up was in correct side and this accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus driver. Suggestion was made by non-claimants to the witnesses to the effect that Pick-up driver while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner while trying to overtake Tractor collided with the Bus. Though, suggestion given by counsel for the non-claimants was denied, however fact remains that witnesses failed to explain the circumstances under which this accident took place in the mid of the road. It is true that in the claim petition, claimants are not required to prove the negligence beyond any reasonable doubt and issue of rash and negligent driving is decided on the principle of preponderance of evidence. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the non-claimants is more reliable in comparison to evidence produced by the claimants. 16. It is true that in the claim petition, claimants are not required to prove the negligence beyond any reasonable doubt and issue of rash and negligent driving is decided on the principle of preponderance of evidence. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the non-claimants is more reliable in comparison to evidence produced by the claimants. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the fact of filing challan against the roadways Bus driver cannot be accepted to conclude that only roadways Bus driver was negligent for this accident when there exists ample circumstances supported by the oral evidence, which rebuts sole negligence on the part of Bus driver. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, taking into consideration negligence on the part of deceased while ascertaining claim of compensation, 40% of the liability of the compensation should be fastened on deceased. Hence, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced to the extent of 40%. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 1.3.2019 is modified to the extent that claimants would be entitled to get 60% i.e. Rs. 7,10,645/- of the compensation of Rs. 11,84,409/- awarded by the Tribunal. On the modified amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 7,10,645/- , the claimants would be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 19. The excess amount, if received by the claimants, is liable to be refunded within a period of two months, failing which, the appellant will be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum.