JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.05.2008 in M.V.O.P. No.594 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur; the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation represented by its General Manager, Hyderabad-the 1st respondent preferred this appeal questioning the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 2. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants filed a claim petition under Sections 140, 141, 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of Karlapati Venkata Guruvulu @ Guravaiah, who is the husband of 1st claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and the son of 4th claimant, in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 24.03.2004. Hereinafter, the said Karlapati Venkata Guruvulu @ Guravaiah will be referred to as 'the deceased. 4. The claimant's case is that on 24.03.2004, the deceased boarded a commander jeep bearing No.AP 7 W 3370 at Veldurthy, to proceed to Macherla at 6.45 AM and when the said jeep, after crossing the Mandadi, reached 4 K.M. at bodu turning, R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P. 9 Z 7832 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle), which was proceeding to Kothapalli Reddygudem, came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn and hit the Commander jeep due to which the deceased died on the spot. 5. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that the driver of the offending vehicle followed the rules and is not responsible for the alleged accident; the jeep was loaded with 20 passengers, and the jeep driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and due to overloading of the jeep, one of the persons kept leg outside the jeep. The offending vehicle-RTC bus dashed the jeep; thereby, the deceased herein fell from the jeep and died; the said incident was caused due to the hitting of the bus by the jeep. 6. The 3rd respondent filed a counter almost in similar lines to the counter filed by the 1st respondent and contended that the petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties to the proceedings and the driver of the jeep did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. The 3rd respondent filed a counter almost in similar lines to the counter filed by the 1st respondent and contended that the petition is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties to the proceedings and the driver of the jeep did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 got examined on behalf of the respondents. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that there was no negligence on the part of the jeep driver and the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle-RTC bus, the 1st respondent being the owner is liable to pay the compensation and awarded compensation an amount of Rs.3,96,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the 1st respondent, while dismissing the claim against respondents 2 and 3. 8. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 9. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent/appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle-RTC bus driver. The Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the jeep is also responsible for the accident and failed to observe that there was a collision between the two vehicles coming in the opposite direction and failed to observe that as there were more than 10 passengers in the jeep, the driver lost control over the jeep this accident occurred. He further contends that the Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and prayed to allow the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 11. Now the point for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle’s driver and whether the jeep driver also contributed to the accident. 12. As seen from the order, the Tribunal relied on the evidence of P.W.2, who is said to be a direct witness to the accident. Now the point for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle’s driver and whether the jeep driver also contributed to the accident. 12. As seen from the order, the Tribunal relied on the evidence of P.W.2, who is said to be a direct witness to the accident. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that on 24.03.2004, he and others were proceeding in a commander jeep bearing No. A.P. 7 W 3370 from Veladri to Macherla at about 6.40 PM; when they reached Mandadi, the offending vehicle-RTC bus, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the jeep, and the said Guravaiah (deceased) died on the spot and he and others received injures. 13. On behalf of the 1st respondent/appellant, R.W.1 was examined, and according to his evidence, the deceased kept his leg outside the jeep towards the right side. The jeep driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and did not apply the brake even at the curve, and as such, the accident occurred. 14. The claimants relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A.5-certified copy of the charge sheet. Ex.A.1-F.I.R. shows that a crime was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle-RTC bus Ex.A.5-charge sheet also shows that the accident occurred due to negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver. 15. It is the contention of the 1st respondent/appellant that there is the involvement of two vehicles, and the accident occurred due to a head-on collision. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal ought to consider contributory negligence on the part of the drivers of both vehicles. 16. The claimants also relied on Ex.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.4- M.V.I. report to establish that the death of the deceased caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The respondents placed no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet were incorrect. 17. 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 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 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. A document with some probative value, the genuineness of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal for getting preponderance of probable versions. As such, it is by 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 arriving at a conclusion regarding rashness and negligence, as well as the mode and manner of the accident. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. When the 1st respondent/appellant contends that the accident happened differently, it is to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal, based on which the Tribunal is 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 auto driver responsible for the accident. The contents of the charge sheet also support the case of claimants regarding the manner of the accident. 18. This court believes that negligence or contributory negligence must be proved like any other fact. There are no different standards for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. The pleas taken in the counter will remain 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 rash and negligent driving of the jeep. In the absence of convincing evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of common law cannot be applied in the present case. 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 driver of the offending vehicle-RTC bus, was solely negligent in causing the said accident. 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 driver of the offending vehicle-RTC bus, was solely negligent in causing the said accident. While granting relief under the Act, the courts are not to be bound by mere technicalities but would adopt a liberal approach by giving the law a more comprehensive construction and meaning that would favour the victims. 19. A normal rule is for the claimant to prove the negligence. But in accident cases, hardship is caused to the claimants as the actual cause of the accident is not known to them but is solely within the knowledge of the respondent who caused it. It will then be for the respondent to establish the accident due to some other cause than his negligence. As the respondents did not choose to examine the bus driver who was involved in the accident, and he did not enter into the box to explain the manner of the accident, there is no ocular evidence led in by the respondents. 20. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this court views that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle-RTC bus, which cannot be found fault with. 21. Regarding the compensation amount, it is the case of the claimants that the deceased used to run the Kirana business; the claimants also relied on Ex.A.7-Application for Agency, Ex.A.8- xerox copy of R.C., Ex.A.9-certificate issued by Chalapathi Chits and Ex.A.10-Account copy of Shriram Chits, to establish that he used to work as an agent and getting commission from Chalapati chits. To establish the said fact, the claimants got examined P.W.3-B.Sri Ramachandra Murthy, who is working in Chalapathi Chits and P.W.4-B.Nageswara Rao, who is the legal assistant. Their evidence shows that during 2003-04, the deceased got an amount of Rs.20,375/- towards commission from Chalapati Chits. The Tribunal accepted the documents relied on by the claimants and held that the deceased was an agent of Sriram Chits and Chalapati Chits and further he was also doing Kirana business. P.W.1 admitted in her evidence that in the absence of her husband, she was sitting in the Kirana shop. The Tribunal accepted the documents relied on by the claimants and held that the deceased was an agent of Sriram Chits and Chalapati Chits and further he was also doing Kirana business. P.W.1 admitted in her evidence that in the absence of her husband, she was sitting in the Kirana shop. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents relied on by the claimants, the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the deceased was earning around Rs.3,000/- per month; the said finding is questioned by the 1st respondent/ appellant. 22. In the absence of proof of the earnings, the Apex Court, in the case of Lakshmi Devi and others vs Mohammad Tabber, [ 2008 ACJ 1488 ], held that in today's world, even common labour can earn Rs.100/- per day. Following the principle laid down by the Apex Court, this court views that the Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased. 23. It is further contended that the Tribunal wrongly applied the multiplier ‘15’, which would be applied for the age group of persons between 36 to 40 years. 24. The claimants relied on Ex.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.3-postmortem examination report to prove the age of the deceased as 40 years. The Tribunal considered the age of the deceased as 40 years by relying on the documents filed by the claimants and applied multiplier 15' to arrive at the compensation under the head loss of dependency. No evidence, contra to the documents relied on by the claimants, is put forth by the 1st respondent/appellant. Hence, the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier 15' for the age group between 36 to 40 years and awarded compensation under loss of dependency and other heads, in accordance with the law. 25. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the judgment passed by the Tribunal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 26. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. 27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.