JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2007 in MVOP No.224 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ongole (for short 'the Tribunal'), the 3rd respondent National Insurance Company, represented by its Branch Manager, has preferred this appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal. 2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience. 3. The petitioners filed the claim application under Section 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/-for the death of Petluri Sreenivasa Rao (hereinafter be referred to as 'deceased') in a motor vehicle that occurred on 06.12.2005. 4. The 1st claimant is the mother, and claimants 2 and 3 are the deceased's grandparents. The husband of the 1st claimant was murdered. The claimant's case is that on 06.12.2005 during night hours, the deceased, after completing his work at the shop, was going to his village Renangivaram on his two-wheeler, a car bearing No.AP27A3564 (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle), driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased’s two-wheeler and caused the accident, as a result of which the deceased fell and sustained multiple injuries on his body and died on the spot. 5. The original owner of the offending vehicle was the 1st respondent’s father, who died recently. The 1st respondent filed a counter-denying all the allegations in the claim petition. He contended that the 3rd respondent duly insured the offending vehicle. The policy is valid and in force as of the date of the accident. The 3rd respondent is wholly liable to pay the compensation amount. The 2nd respondent is not a necessary party, and he is unnecessarily implicated. 6. As seen from the Tribunal’s order, the claim petition against the 2nd respondent is dismissed as he is only a person who took the car from the 1st respondent and again returned it to him. 7. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter contending that the 1st respondent is not the owner of the car in question; the insurance policy also is not in the 1st respondent’s name; the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated necessary issues for consideration. 9. 7. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed a counter contending that the 1st respondent is not the owner of the car in question; the insurance policy also is not in the 1st respondent’s name; the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated necessary issues for consideration. 9. During the trial on behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A4, and on behalf of 3rd respondent, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B1 policy. 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents. Perused the record. 11. After considering the entire material on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation amount of Rs.2,71,932/-with interest at 7.5% per annum against respondents 1 and 3. The claim against the 2nd respondent is dismissed. 12. The learned appellant’s counsel contends that though the Tribunal framed the issue as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car driver bearing No.AP27A3564, but it failed to give any findings. He further contends that the learned Tribunal erred in considering the deceased’s age while granting the compensation. He further contends that the mother’s age must be considered since the deceased was unmarried. The learned Tribunal erred in deducting only 1/3rd amount towards the personal 1st expenses of the deceased. He further contends that the respondent failed to disclose material facts while taking an insurance policy. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the learned Tribunal's findings and observations. 14. Now the points for consideration are whether the accident occurred due to the involvement of the offending vehicle; whether the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable; whether the insurance company can be saddled with the liability to pay the entire compensation amount or should be wholly exonerated or it should be made liable to pay the compensation amount and after that to recover the same from the legal heirs of the registered owner of the vehicle? POINTS: 15. After carefully reading the evidence on record and the submissions of both learned counsel, this court views that there is no serious dispute regarding the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident. POINTS: 15. After carefully reading the evidence on record and the submissions of both learned counsel, this court views that there is no serious dispute regarding the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident. The appellant's main contention is that there is no mention in Ex.A1 attested copy of FIR regarding the registration number of the offending vehicle, and it is a hit-and-run case. So the offending vehicle is not involved in the accident. 16. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, she is not an eyewitness to the accident. The claimants mainly relied on the evidence of PW.2. His evidence shows that scene of the offence is at a distance of 100 meters from where he witnessed the accident. He stated that while the deceased travelled from south to north, the accident occurred on a tar road. He went to the accident place after the accident. He observed that the offending vehicle was a car bearing No.AP27A3564, and after hitting the deceased, it went further and stopped on the road. PW.2 further deposed that he had seen the number of offending vehicles at the time of the accident. 17. A reading of Ex.A1 coupled with an Ex.A5 certified copy of the charge sheet shows that the offending vehicle's driver drove it rashly and negligently and caused the accident. No evidence is placed by the respondent to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In a decision between K.Rajani and others, V. M.Satyanarayana Goud and others, 2015 ACJ 797 , the High Court is pleased to observe that: "when the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false". 18. In the case of Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.), the Apex Court observed as follows: "It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied". 19. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the offending vehicle's driver without proper investigation. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case. 20. 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. As such, it is by now well settled that even FIR or Police Papers, when made part of a claim petition, can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of the accident. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for arriving at a conclusion regarding rashness and negligence and the accident's mode and manner of happening. 21. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving offending vehicle’s driver. When it 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 claimant's case regarding the manner of the accident and also accepted the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet making the car driver responsible for the accident. As already observed, the contents of the charge sheet also support the claimant’s case regarding the manner of the accident. 22. As seen from the claim petition, it is filed under sections 163-A and 166 of the MV Act. A reading of the tribunal order shows that it has granted a compensation amount under Section 163-A of the MV Act. The claimants should not have filed the claim petition by invoking both sections. They ought to have opted for either one of the sections. It seems that for that reason, the Tribunal has not given a finding on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The claimants should not have filed the claim petition by invoking both sections. They ought to have opted for either one of the sections. It seems that for that reason, the Tribunal has not given a finding on the aspect of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. After careful reading of the material on record, this court views that the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is established and also the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident vide Ex.A2 copy of inquest report, Ex.A4 scene observation report and Ex.A5 charge sheet. 23. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that since the deceased was unmarried, the age of the mother has to be taken into consideration. The Tribunal’s order shows that the deceased's age as of the date of the accident, which was 25 years, is considered and multiplied by 17 to award the compensation amount. The appellant/insurance company has not disputed the age of the deceased as observed by the Tribunal. In the case Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs. Mandala Yadagari Goud decided on 09.04.2009 in CA.No.6600 of 2015 it is held that : A reading of the judgment in Sube Singh (supra) shows that where a three-Judge Bench has categorically taken the view that it is the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents that would be the factor for the purposes of taking the multiplier to be applied. This judgment undoubtedly relied upon the case of Munna Lal Jain (supra), which is also a three-Judge Bench judgment on this behalf. The relevant portion of the judgment has also been extracted. Once again, the extracted portion, in turn, refers to the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in Reshma Kumari & Others Vs. Madan Mohan & Another 2013 ACJ 1253 (S.C.). The relevant portion of Reshma Kumari, in turn, has referred to Sarla Verma (supra) case and given its imprimatur to the same. The loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on : (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income, (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased, and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. The loss of dependency is thus stated to be based on : (i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income, (ii) the deductions to be made towards the personal living expenses of the deceased, and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference to the age of the deceased. It is the third aspect of significance, and Reshma Kumari categorically states that it does not want to revisit the law settled in the Sarla Verma case on this behalf. 12. Not only this but the subsequent judgment of the Constitution bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) has also been referred to in Sube Singh for the purpose of calculation of the multiplier. 13. We are convinced that there is no need to take up once again this issue settled by the aforesaid judgments of the three-Judge Bench and also relying upon the Constitution Bench that it is the age of the deceased which has to be taken into account and not the age of the dependents. 24. By following the principles in the said decision, this court views that the Tribunal had correctly taken the age of the deceased to apply a multiplier. The other contention is that the Tribunal erred in fixing the deceased's income as Rs.2,000/-. Though the appellant contends that the deceased was a vagabond, no material is in support of the said contention. The evidence of PW.1 that all the claimants were dependent on the deceased's earnings is not disputed. It is not the case of the appellant – insurance company that the claimants have an independent source of income and are not dependent on the deceased's income. After carefully reading the record, this court is inclined to hold that the deceased was working in the medical shop at the time of the accident. So the Tribunal fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-per month, which the claimants have not disputed. 25. The other contention raised by the insurance company is that since the deceased was a bachelor, following the dictum of Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1295 , 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. As seen from the judgment of the Tribunal, it has deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased. 26. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1295 , 50% of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. As seen from the judgment of the Tribunal, it has deducted 1/3rd as personal expenses of the deceased. 26. As already observed, the Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation under Section 163-A of the MV Act. In a decision reported in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, V. Anil Kumar, 2015 ACJ 268 , in a case relating to the death of a bachelor in a Motor Accident, the Tribunal deducted half of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased and awarded compensation”. Considering the contention that in a claim application filed under Section 163-A MV Act compensation has to be assessed as per the structured formula, the second schedule does not admit any deduction above 1/3rd for personal expenses. In Sarala Verma’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that where a family of the bachelor is large and dependants on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and a large number of younger non-earning sister or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. In the instant case, the claimant's mother and old-aged grandparents of the deceased claim that they are dependent on the earnings of the deceased and they have no other source of income. The respondents failed to establish contra; this court views that the Tribunal justified in deducting 1/3rd of the earnings towards personal and living expenses of the deceased had he been alive. 27. As already observed in the preceding paragraphs, the Tribunal considered the monthly earnings of the deceased as Rs.1,333/-after deducting the personal and living expenses. The Tribunal applied the multiplier 17 and fixed the compensation amount of Rs.2,71,932/-and also awarded an amount of Rs.2,500/-towards loss of estate and Rs.2,000/-towards funeral expenses. After considering the material on record, this court views that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and awarded compensation which the claimants did not question by preferring appeal or cross-objections. 28. The insurance company contends that the 1st respondent is not the car's owner, and the insurance policy is not in his name. He got examined as RW.1. 28. The insurance company contends that the 1st respondent is not the car's owner, and the insurance policy is not in his name. He got examined as RW.1. According to him, the original owner was his father, Anantha Reddy, and he took the policy from the insurance company. After his father's death, he obtained a legal heir certificate for the immovable properties of his father. 29. In this regard, RW.2, A.O. of the 3rd respondent/insurance company, deposed that Ex.B1 policy to the crime vehicle stands in the name of P.Ananthareddy, the car's owner, and the same is in force from 16.04.2005 to 15.04.2006. Their company collected premiums to cover the risk of the third party. They did not appoint any investigator to ascertain, apart from 1st respondent, whether there is any other legal heir. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent is the only son of P.Ananthareddi, whose name the vehicle is registered. The accident in question occurred on 06.12.2005. The 1st respondent’s father died on 12.07.2004. It is thus clear that as of the date of taking of Ex.B1 policy, the father of the 1st respondent, the registered owner of the vehicle, is no more. But the insurance policy was obtained in the name of 1st respondent’s father for the period covering from 16.04.2005 to 15.04.2006. The 1st respondent, who was examined as RW.1, clearly admitted in cross-examination that after his father's death, he did not intimate RTO authorities. It is established that Ex.B1 insurance policy was obtained subsequent to the death of 1st respondent’s father without reporting the death. In Ex.B1 policy, the 1st respondent's father's name is shown as the owner of the vehicle though he died in 2004. However, it is not disputed that the insurance policy was in subsistence as of the date of the accident. 30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Reliance Insurance Company Limited & Another Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod, (2019) 6 SCC 175 , it was held that the concealment of any vital information would breach the fundamental principle of uberrimae fidei, on which all Insurance is based. Where the insured has breached utmost good faith, it would render the policy revocable and make a claim repudiable by the insurer. It has reasoned as under:- "….29. Contracts of Insurance are governed by the principle of utmost good faith. Where the insured has breached utmost good faith, it would render the policy revocable and make a claim repudiable by the insurer. It has reasoned as under:- "….29. Contracts of Insurance are governed by the principle of utmost good faith. The duty of mutual fair dealing requires all parties to a contract to be fair and open with each other to create and maintain trust between them. In a contract of Insurance, the insured can be expected to have information of which they have knowledge. This justifies a duty of good faith, leading to a positive duty of disclosure. The duty of disclosure in insurance contracts was established in a King's Bench decision in Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr 1905, where Lord Mansfield held thus: "Insurance is a contract upon speculation. The special facts upon which the contingent chance is to be computed lie most commonly in the knowledge of the insured only; the underwriter trusts to his representation and proceeds upon confidence that he does not keep back any circumstance in his knowledge to mislead the underwriter into a belief that the circumstance does not exist, and to induce him to estimate the risque as if it did not exist." 31. In a Judgment of the New Delhi High Court in the case, Kiran Banerjee and others Vs National Insurance Company & Others in MAC.APP.No.700/2019 & CM Nos.33715-17/2019, in the following facts of the case, the policyholder passed away on 24.05.2012, and the accident happened on 19.10.2014. In the interim, the Insurance Company was never informed about this very crucial information that the policyholder had passed away. In the circumstance, the policy itself would have ended on the expiry of its tenure or could not have otherwise been issued against a dead person. The claim could be repudiated, but the statutory liability of the insurer has been invoked to pay compensation to the deceased to recover the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above is followed. 32. After carefully reading the material on record, this court views that the facts in the said decision are similar to the present facts of the case. After the death of the registered owner of the vehicle, his son, the 1st respondent, obtained an insurance policy subsequently without informing the death of his father. 32. After carefully reading the material on record, this court views that the facts in the said decision are similar to the present facts of the case. After the death of the registered owner of the vehicle, his son, the 1st respondent, obtained an insurance policy subsequently without informing the death of his father. No doubt, the insurance policy was in subsistence as on the date of the accident. All the parties to a contract are to be fair and open with each other to create and maintain trust between them. In a contract of Insurance, the insured can be expected to have information of which he has the knowledge, and the 1st respondent failed to inform the insurer about the crucial information on the date of taking the insurance policy that the policyholder, who is the registered owner of the vehicle already passed away. It is a concealment of vital information which would render the policy revocable. 33. In light of observations made in the above citations, this court views that the Tribunal should have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the estate of the owner of the offending vehicle. 34. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed without costs by modifying the order dated 11.12.2007 in MVOP No.224 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ongole, in respect of liability against 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent is directed to pay the compensation to claimants at first instance and recover the same from the estate of the owner of the offending vehicle, which is in the hands of the 1st respondent. 35. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.