JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.96 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-V Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Ongole, the 3rd respondent-The National Insurance Company Ltd., represented by its Divisional Manager, Dharavarithota, Ongole, has filed this appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. as claimants and respondents. 3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of their son Bopparaju Madhu Babu in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.01.2011. The said Bopparaju Madhu Babu will hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased. The claimant's case is that on 11.01.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased and his cousin Sai Kumar were cycling from Jolly to Throvagunta and returning to Ongole, and when they reached Market Yard on the NH-5 road, a tractor and trailer bearing No. A.P. 27 AB 5671 and 5671 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle) with a load of sand coming from the backside, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the cycle of the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell on the ground, was run over by the tractor, and died on the spot. 4. The first respondent is the driver, the second respondent is the owner, and the third respondent is the insurer of the tractor and trailer. 5. The first respondent filed his counter, contending that he had never been involved in an accident and never worked as a driver for the second respondent. He further contended that he had a valid driving licence and was an experienced driver. 6. The second respondent filed his counter, contending that he always used to engage the driver, who has a valid driving licence and never violated the conditions of the policy. The vehicle is insured by the third respondent, and so compensation has to be paid by the third respondent only. 7. The third respondent filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle; the driver had no valid and effective driving licence. The claimant's claim is excessive. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. 7. The third respondent filed a written statement contending that there was no negligence by the driver of the offending vehicle; the driver had no valid and effective driving licence. The claimant's claim is excessive. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, on behalf of claimants, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A., 1 to A.5 . On behalf of the respondents, examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. 9. The learned Tribunal, after evaluating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No.1, and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. 10. Heard Sri Paladugu Venkateswarlu, learned standing counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3, Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/claimants, Sri G.Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3/respondent No.1 and Sri N.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.4/ respondent No.2. 11. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/ appellant contended that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence; the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. He did not have a transport endorsement to drive the offending vehicle, which is a transport vehicle. The driver of the insured vehicle obtained a transport driving licence 3 months after the occurrence. The Tribunal failed to see that the deceased is a bachelor and should deduct 50% of the income towards personal expenses instead of 1/3rd. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum, which is on the higher side. 12. Learned counsel for the claimants supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 13. Now the points that arise for consideration are whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or requires reduction And whether the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence. 14. To prove the accident, the first claimant himself got examined as P.W.1. It is not in dispute that the deceased is his son, the deceased was 11 years old by the date of the accident, and he was studying 6th class. 14. To prove the accident, the first claimant himself got examined as P.W.1. It is not in dispute that the deceased is his son, the deceased was 11 years old by the date of the accident, and he was studying 6th class. According to the evidence of P.W.1, while his son was going from Ongole on a bicycle, along with his cousin for Jolly, when he reached the agricultural market yard on the NH-5 road, the offending vehicle's driver came in a rash, and negligent manner dashed the deceased. The deceased fell as the tractor ran over him, and he died on the spot. After reading the evidence of P.W.1, it can see that he has not personally witnessed the accident. He also admitted in cross-examination that he was not present at the time of the accident. To prove the accident, the claimants examined P.W.2-B.Sai Kumar is an eyewitness to the accident. His evidence shows that he and his brother (deceased) were proceeding on separate cycles on 11.01.2011 at about 11.00 a.m. they reached an agricultural market yard on the NH-5 road. At about 12:15 hours, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same rashly and negligently and dashed the deceased' cycle, due to which the said deceased fell. The tractor's tyres ran over the deceased head, resulting in it being crushed, and he died on the spot. It is elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the deceased is his younger brother. He and his brother were going on separate cycles. Except the same, nothing is elicited to discredit the evidence of P.W.1. I see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. The Tribunal rightly considered and accepted the evidence of P.W.2. The claimants also relied on Ex.A.1- attested copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A.5 attested copy of charge sheet in support of their contention. Ex.A.2-attested copy of inquest report and Ex.A.3-attested copy of post-mortem examination report also shows that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 15. Nothing on record suggests that the investigating officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle without conducting a proper investigation. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case. In a proceeding under the M.V.Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case. In a proceeding under the M.V.Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. The document having some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. It is now well settled that even F.I.R. or Police Papers, when made part of a claim petition, can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of the happening of the accident. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence, as well as the accident's mode and manner of happening. 16. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. When it contends that the accident happened due to the deceased's negligence, it is to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal based on which the Tribunal expected to give its conclusion. The Tribunal has accepted the claimants' case regarding the manner of the accident and also accepted the observations made by the investigating officer in the charge sheet making the driver of the offending vehicle responsible for the accident. The charge sheet's content also supports the claimants' case regarding the manner of the accident. No material was placed by the appellant/3rd respondent to show that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence, as contended. 17. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. For the reasons best known to the 3rd respondent, it has not examined the driver of the offending vehicle, who was supposed to see the manner of the accident. No explanation is forthcoming. Regarding the aspect of negligence also, no evidence is produced before the Court by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has not placed any material before Court to show its source of information about the accident. 18. This Court views that it must prove either negligence or contributory negligence like any other fact; there is no different standard for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. The 3rd respondent has not placed any material before Court to show its source of information about the accident. 18. This Court views that it must prove either negligence or contributory negligence like any other fact; there is no different standard for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. The pleas taken in the counter will remain as pleas as they are not substantiated by acceptable, relevant and legal evidence. There must be cogent evidence to prove contributory negligence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence. In the absence of cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, this Court can not apply the common law doctrine in the present case. Although there are no details of contributory negligence in the counter, and no evidence is also put forth except alleging a stray sentence in the counter. How the accident happened leaves no doubt that the offending vehicle's driver was solely negligent in causing the said accident. While granting relief under the Act, the courts are not bound by mere technicalities. Still, they would adopt a liberal approach by giving the law a more comprehensive construction and meaning that would favour the victims. 19. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle holds good. 20. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/ appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence as of the accident, and he subsequently obtained a driving licence with transport endorsement. 21. After carefully reading the evidence on record, this Court believes the said submission is incorrect. Even the 3rd respondent/ appellant placed Ex.B.2-extract copy of driving licence. To prove the same, the 3rd respondent/appellant also examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1-copy of the insurance policy shows that the offending vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent. The same is insured with the 3rd respondent; the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. To prove the same, the 3rd respondent/appellant also examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B.1 to B.3. Ex.B.1-copy of the insurance policy shows that the offending vehicle belongs to the 2nd respondent. The same is insured with the 3rd respondent; the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. The said evidence was let in on behalf of the insurance company; it can be concluded that the 3rd respondent/ appellant has not disputed the subsistence of the insurance policy as of the date of the accident. The Additional Licencing Authority, Chirala, placed Ex.B.2-extract of the driving licence of the 1st respondent., At the instance of the 3rd respondent/ insurance company, R.W.2-the Senior Assistant in the R.T.O. office got examined. He deposed that as per Ex.B.2-extract of the driving licence of the 1st respondent, no transport licence was given to the 1st respondent on 25.03.2011. It supports the case of the 3rd respondent/appellant that driver of the offending vehicle obtained a driving licence with transport endorsement subsequent to the accident in question. However, in the cross-examination, R.W.2 admitted that there is no difference between the transport and non-transport endorsement, and the tractor comes under a light motor vehicle. A non-transport driving licence holder can drive a light motor vehicle. It is established that the driver has not possessed a transport licence at the accident time, but he had a driving licence for non-transport. The evidence placed on behalf of the 3rd respondent/ appellant clearly shows that the driver had a driving licence for non-transport at the time of the accident. Thus, this Court is of the view that the submission made by the 3rd respondent/ appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident is incorrect. It is further submitted that even if it is established from the record that the driver had a driving licence for the non-transport vehicle, it violates the terms of the policy. The Tribunal should have directed the 3rd respondent/ appellant to pay and recover from the owner. This Court believes that the said submission is no longer res Integra, given the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., [ (2017) 14 SCC 663 ], wherein it was held, in paragraphs 60.2 and 60.4, that, “60.2. This Court believes that the said submission is no longer res Integra, given the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited., [ (2017) 14 SCC 663 ], wherein it was held, in paragraphs 60.2 and 60.4, that, “60.2. For a transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either does not exceed 7500 kg. Would be a light motor vehicle and also a motor car or tractor or a road roller, "unladen weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive the class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in Section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued Under Section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. 60.3. ….. 60.4. The effect of the amendment of Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle" is related only to the categories which were substituted in the year 1994 and the procedure to obtain a driving licence for transport vehicle of a class of "light motor vehicle" continues to be the same as it was and has not been changed and there is no requirement to obtain a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect." 22. The same was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Santaella Vs. Rajesh and others, [A.I.R. 2017 SC 4054], holding that, “Whether the holder of a licence for a light motor vehicle can drive a tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether a separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle? The same was reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Santaella Vs. Rajesh and others, [A.I.R. 2017 SC 4054], holding that, “Whether the holder of a licence for a light motor vehicle can drive a tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether a separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle? We have answered the question that a driver having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of L.M.V. class, and there is no necessity to obtain a separate endorsement since the tractor attached to the trolley was the transport vehicle of the category of a light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover the amount from the owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer." 23. Regarding the quantum of the compensation amount, as per the case of claimants, the deceased was aged about 11 years at the time of the accident. But no date of birth certificate is filed to prove the age. However, the claimants relied on the post-mortem examination report and inquest report to show the deceased's age. The finding of the Tribunal regarding the age of the deceased at the time of the accident is not disputed. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/ appellant that the Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd of the earnings towards personal expenses. It is supposed to be deducted half of the amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased. 24. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajendra Singh & Ors. vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors, [ 2020 ACJ 2211 ]. As seen from the judgment, in the said case, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the minor child. However, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenditure with a multiplier of 15. vs National Insurance Co.Ltd. & Ors, [ 2020 ACJ 2211 ]. As seen from the judgment, in the said case, the Tribunal assessed the notional income of the minor child. However, the Tribunal deducted 50% towards personal expenditure with a multiplier of 15. Without disturbing the said finding, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, in paragraph 13, that the income of the minor child is incapable of precise fixation and observed further that they find no reason to interfere with the assessed notional income of the second deceased. Considering the grant of the future prospectus for the deceased child aged about ten years, in R.K.Malik and others vs Kiran Paul, [2009 A.C.J. 1924], the Hon'ble Apex Court held, in paragraph 31, as follows: “31. A forceful submission has been made by the learned Counsels appearing for the claimants-appellants that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to consider the claims of the appellants concerning the future prospects of the children. It has been submitted that the evidence with regard to the same has been ignored by the Courts below. On perusal of the evidence on record, we find merit in the such submission that the Courts below have overlooked that aspect while granting compensation. It is well settled legal principle that in addition to awarding compensation for pecuniary losses, it must also grant compensation with regard to the prospects of the children. It is incumbent upon the Courts to consider the said aspect while awarding compensation." 25. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] it was observed that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle. In regard to a bachelor's, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Further observed that taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, the passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in the price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects. 26. Further observed that taking into consideration the cumulative factors, namely, the passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the change in the price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life, etc., an addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects. 26. By following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court considers that 50% of the income is to be deducted towards personal expenses and 40% of the income to be added towards future prospectus. On deduction of 50% of the annual income towards personal expenses of the deceased, an amount of Rs.7,500/- can be considered, and 40% of the annual income under the future head prospects arrived at Rs.3,000/-, in total, this Court, thought the annual income at Rs.10,500/- (Rs.7,500/- +3,000/-). The Tribunal has applied the multiplier 15' to assess the loss of dependency, which need not be disturbed, and it would come to Rs.10,500/- x 15 = 1,57,500/-. The claimant is also entitled to compensation under the head funeral expenses and parental consortium. The claimant is also entitled to an amount of Rs.16,500/-towards funeral expenses and an amount of Rs.26,000/-towards Parental consortium. The claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (1,57,500/- + 16,500/- + 44,000/-). 27. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent mainly contended that the Tribunal had granted interest @ 7.5% per annum, and the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is excessive, and it is to be scaled down to 6% p.a. 28. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has not placed any evidence before the Court to show the prevailing interest rate as of the date of the accident. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Satinder Kaur, [ 2020 ACJ 2131 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Tribunal allowed 9% p.a. from filing the claim petition. However, the High Court reduced the interest rate to 7.5% p.a. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that it is appropriate to direct the interest @ 12% p.a. to be paid on the total compensation awarded. 29. By following the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that granting a rate of interest depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. 29. By following the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that granting a rate of interest depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal, at its discretion, granted 7.5% p.a. after considering the entire material on record; this Court is of the view that the interest need not be scaled down, as the Tribunal has appropriately exercised its discretion. 30. In all, I do not find any substance or merit in the appeal; the appeal is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 32. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.