JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 11.01.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.86 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, at Rajahmundry (for short ‘the tribunal’), the claimants filed this appeal seeking reconsideration of the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and for enhancement of compensation. 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 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a compensation amount of Rs.8,00,000/- for the untimely death of Duvvarapu Satyanarayana in a road accident that occurred on 29.10.2009. The 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are the minor children, and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana. 4. The claimant's case is that on 29.10.2009 at about 5.30 PM, the said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana was proceeding on his motorcycle towards Sidantham village from Ravulapalem when he reached Mallayyadoddi Village on N.H.5 road riding a motorcycle on the road margin, one R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P. 28 Z 2992, driven by its driver, who is the 1st respondent herein, in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed lost control of the bus and dashed the motorcycle from his behind. Consequently, the Said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana, who was on the motorcycle, fell; the bus dragged him and the motorcycle to a distance of 100 feet, thereby sustained grievous injuries, for which he was shifted to Government Hospital, Rajahmundry, for treatment, where the doctors declared him as dead. The said Duvvarapu Satyanarayana would hereinafter be referred to as 'the deceased. 5. The first respondent, the driver of the R.T.C. bus, filed a written statement denying material allegations made in the claim petition contending that he had a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident; in any case, he is not responsible for paying compensation. 6. The 2nd respondent, the Managing Director of A.P.S.R.T.C., filed a written statement contending that there was no rashness or negligent Act on the part of the 1st respondent, the deceased in a rash and negligent manner driving the motorcycle, lost control and hit the rear portion of the bus. It is further contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. 7. It is further contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues. To substantiate their claim, during the trial, the claimants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 on their behalf. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 got examined, but no document was marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held the accident occurred due to 50% contributory negligence of each of the first respondents, the deceased, awarded a compensation amount of Rs.2,42,000/- towards 50% negligence attributed to the 1st respondent, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. 9. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. 10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is the accident occurred due to the driver's negligence of the R.T.C. bus, which hit the motorcycle of the deceased from the back side, causing the deceased's death. The Tribunal erred in granting a meagre compensation amount of Rs.2,42,000/- though the claimants are claimed for total compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The Tribunal erroneously had taken into account the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- per month. 11. The learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 12. Now the points for determination are, I. Whether the finding of the Tribunal in respect of contributory negligence of the deceased is correct, or must it be reconsidered? II. Is the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal just and reasonable, or does it require enhancement? POINT No. I: 13. The 1st claimant, who is the wife of the deceased, was examined P.W.1. Her evidence shows that she did not witness the occurrence of the accident. In view of the same, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the manner of the accident as deposed by her. The claimants examined one Kondeti Venkata Rao, as P.W.2, who is a third party to the proceedings and said to be a direct witness to the occurrence of the accident. In view of the same, the Tribunal has not considered the evidence of P.W.1 regarding the manner of the accident as deposed by her. The claimants examined one Kondeti Venkata Rao, as P.W.2, who is a third party to the proceedings and said to be a direct witness to the occurrence of the accident. According to the evidence of P.W.2, while he was sitting at the hotel, facing towards NH5 road, at a distance of 15 feet, he noticed Satyanarayana (deceased herein) proceeding on his motorcycle slowly on the left side of the road margin, then the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. A.P. 28 Z 2992 was driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and, at high speed, came and dashed against the motor cycle of Satyanarayana (deceased herein) from his behind and wheels of the bus ran over the deceased, dragging him to 20 feet distance and caused death. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted, the place of the accident was on four lines road, i.e., N.H.5. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to disprove witnessing the occurrence of an accident, his presence at the time of the accident. On the other hand, the driver of the R.T.C. bus, who is the 1st respondent herein, himself examined as R.W.1. According to his evidence, he took all precautions while negotiating to turn at Mallayyadoddi Village, whereas Satyanarayana (deceased herein) was riding a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the vehicle, hit the bus on its rear side, fell and sustained injuries. In the cross-examination, he admitted to placing him under suspension for causing the accident and for filing a charge sheet against him. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the oral evidence is only oath against oath and each party supporting their case. The claimant relied on Ex.A.1-attested copy of F.I.R., which was registered based on the statement of Duvvarapu Perraju, no other than the Junior Paternal uncle of the deceased. A reading of Ex.A.1 shows that he came to the scene of occurrence on receipt of information about the accident. The claimants also relied on Ex.A.5-certified copy of the charge sheet. According to the allegations made in the charge sheet, Satyanarayana (deceased herein) was proceeding on his Bajaj Kawasaki motorcycle towards Siddantham from Mandapeta when he reached Mallayyadoddi village centre in Ravulapadu outskirts. The claimants also relied on Ex.A.5-certified copy of the charge sheet. According to the allegations made in the charge sheet, Satyanarayana (deceased herein) was proceeding on his Bajaj Kawasaki motorcycle towards Siddantham from Mandapeta when he reached Mallayyadoddi village centre in Ravulapadu outskirts. The bus driver proceeded in the same direction, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, took right side diversion without taking precaution and dashed against the motor cycle of Satyanarayana. The Tribunal relied on a principle laid down by this Court in Shamshuddin and another v. Atta Anaruddin and another, 2006 (6) ALT 147 , wherein it was held that the negligence of the driver of a vehicle could not be judged merely on the ground that he was charge-sheeted. Still, to be decided on the evidence available, the Tribunal has to decide the negligent Actions of the driver independently. As seen from the record, the claimants also relied on Ex.A.4-M.V.I. report, wherein the Motor Vehicle Inspector noted that he inspected the vehicle-RTC bus bearing No. A.P. 28 Z 2992, and damage found to the vehicle is noted in column No.8 of the report. He found a dent on the right side of the body near the tyre and damaged the motorcycle bearing No. A.P. 37 A.D. 3576-MC 1) left side cover broken, 2) headlight cover damaged, 3) left side clutch handle slightly damaged and 4) front brake lever broken. The report of the V.M.I. is clear about the damage caused to both the vehicles involved in the accident. After considering the damage caused to the front portion of the motorcycle, the Tribunal rightly observed that the motorcycle hit the bus; otherwise, the question of breaking or damage to the headlight cover, left side clutch, and braking of the front brake lever does not arise. The Tribunal further observed if the accident occurred in the manner narrated by the claimants in the pleadings, the evidence of P.W.2, i.e. hitting the motorcycle from its behind, the rear portion of the motorcycle would have been damaged. Still, the V.M.I. report shows that damage was found to the front portion of the motorcycle. Since the claimants relied on the V.M.I. report, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, they cannot dispute the contents of the V.M.I. report. 14. The normal rule is for the claimants to prove the negligence. Still, the V.M.I. report shows that damage was found to the front portion of the motorcycle. Since the claimants relied on the V.M.I. report, as rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, they cannot dispute the contents of the V.M.I. report. 14. The normal rule is for the claimants to prove the negligence. But in accident cases, hardship is caused to the claimants as the true cause of the accident is not known to them but is solely within the knowledge of the respondents who caused it. It will then be for the respondents to establish the accident due to some other cause than the own negligence of the deceased. Either the claimants or the respondents did not adduce any evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In K. Rajani and others v. M. Satyanarayana Goud and others, 2015 ACJ 797 , the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed that : “when the insurance company knew that the police investigation was 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". 15. In Bheemla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.) the Hon'ble 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 standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied". 16. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the R.T.C. bus 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. 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. 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 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. 17. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the bus driver. When it contends that the accident happened due to the only negligence of the deceased. The claimants have to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal based on which the Tribunal is expected to give its conclusion. No material was placed by the claimants to show the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, as contended. 18. This Court views that it must prove either negligence or contributory negligence like any other fact; there is a no different standard for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surmise. The pleas taken in the counter will remain as pleas as they are not substantiated by acceptable, relevant and legal evidence. To prove contributory negligence, there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is a shred of specific evidence to prove the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of both the vehicle drivers. The manner in which the accident happened leaves no doubt that there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the offending bus and the deceased 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. 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. Based on the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, the Tribunal observed that the manner of the accident pleaded and the evidence of P.W.2, i.e., the bus hit the motorcycle from its behind, is false on the face of it. However, the material placed on record shows that the 1st respondent, while negotiating to turn towards the right side on N.H.5 near Mallayyadoddi Village, the motorcycle hit the bus. By giving the reasons, the Tribunal observed that 100% negligence or rashness could not be attributed to the bus driver. Considering those facts, the Tribunal observed that the motorcycle's rider is obliged to take necessary precautions while proceeding on the highway, what is happening ahead to the motorcycle. As per Ex.A.4-M.V.I. report, the bus was ahead of the motorcycle negotiating the right turn. When he noticed the bus negotiating to turn, he would have taken necessary precautions by applying brakes, but he did not take immediate care and caution. It is also observed that the failure of the first respondent to prove the precautions taken by him while negotiating the turning by examining any independent witness who witnessed the accident and concluded that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the first respondent and the deceased. After carefully reading the entire evidence adduced by both sides, this Court accepts the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the occurrence of the accident due to contributory negligence of both the first respondent and the deceased herein. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT No. II 20. To prove the death of Satyanarayana (deceased herein) due to injuries sustained in the accident, the claimants relied on Ex.A.2-inquest report and Ex.A.3-post mortem examination report. As already observed, the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident is not disputed by the respondents. The Tribunal, based on the inquest report and P.M.E. report, considered the age of the deceased as 29 years and applied a multiplier of 17 as per guidelines of the Apex Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 A.C.J. Page 1298. The Tribunal, based on the inquest report and P.M.E. report, considered the age of the deceased as 29 years and applied a multiplier of 17 as per guidelines of the Apex Court in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 A.C.J. Page 1298. The case of the claimants is that the deceased was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum as an agriculturist and carrying on the washerman profession. They have not placed any material before the Court to show the earnings of the deceased. It is not in serious dispute that the deceased was only a washerman by profession, running a push cart to iron clothes; thereby, he is earning Rs.1,50,000/-does not arise as observed by the Tribunal. Therefore, considering the deceased as unskilled labour, whose income can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month as held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Lakshmi Devi and others v. Mohammad Tabbar and another, 2008 A.C.J. page 1488. The Tribunal has given its reasons for fixing the earnings of the deceased. The said reasons given by the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. As seen from the record, the 1st claimant is the wife, claimants 2 and 3 are minor children, and claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased. As per the guidelines of the Apex Court in Sarala Varma’s case referred to supra, the Tribunal deducted 1/4th of earnings towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, and it is also observed that 3/4th of the earnings shall be taken as a contribution to the family, thereby, contributing to the family by the deceased comes to Rs.27,000/-. Regarding the future prospectus concerned, the Tribunal did not award any amount towards the future prospectus. Vide judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the Apex Court held that an addition of 40% of the actual salary to the deceased's income towards future prospects, where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. In the present case, the deceased was aged 29 years; hence 40% of the earnings, i.e. an amount of Rs.10,800/- (27,000 x 40%) towards future prospectus, can be considered. The income, including a future prospectus, arrives at Rs.37,800/-(27,000 + 10,800). In the present case, the deceased was aged 29 years; hence 40% of the earnings, i.e. an amount of Rs.10,800/- (27,000 x 40%) towards future prospectus, can be considered. The income, including a future prospectus, arrives at Rs.37,800/-(27,000 + 10,800). The appropriate multiplier for the person's age group, 26 to 30 years, is 17', vide multiplier table as mentioned in the Judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma's case referred to supra. The loss of earnings of the deceased would arrive at Rs.6,42,600/- (37,800x 17). 21. Coming to the consideration of funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of consortium, in Pranay Sethi’s case referred to supra, the Apex Court held, in paragraph 61, that : "(viii) Reasonable figures under conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at 10% every three years." 22. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.), at paragraph 8, the Apex Court held that : "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation, irrespective of whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the claimant. …. (8.7) A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.), dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is the loss of consortium. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', parental consortium', and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. Concerning a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.). The parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. The filial consortium is the right of parents to compensate in the case of the accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the end of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The most incredible suffering for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. The filial consortium is the right of parents to compensate in the case of the accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the end of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The most incredible suffering for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and role in the family unit." 23. By following the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi's case and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd's case referred to supra, this Court inclined to award the compensation as detailed hereunder:- Towards loss of dependency Rs.6,42,600/- Towards funeral expenses Rs.16,500/- Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/- Spousal consortium Rs.44,000/- Parental consortium Rs.88,000/- (each 44,000/-) Filial consortium Rs.40,000/- (each 20,000/-) Total Rs.8,47,600/- 24. Out of the compensation calculated at Rs.8,47,600/-, the claimants are entitled to an amount of Rs.4,23,800/- towards 50% of the contributory negligence of the driver of the R.T.C. bus. Accordingly, the point is answered. 25. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part without costs, enhancing the compensation amount from an amount of Rs.2,42,000/- to an amount of Rs.4,23,800/- (Rupees four lakh, twenty-three thousand and eight hundred only) towards the 50% of the contributory negligence of the driver of the R.T.C. bus, with interest at 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Out of the enhanced compensation amount, i.e., Rs.1,81,800/-(4,23,800 – 2,42,000), the 1st claimant is entitled to 50% of the amount with accrued interest on the enhanced compensation amount; claimants 2 and 3, who are the children to the deceased, are entitled to 15% of the amount each; and the claimants 4 and 5 who are the parents of the deceased, are entitled to 10% of the amount each; The 2nd respondent-Corporation is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount, excluding the amount already deposited, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares on filing an appropriate application before the Tribunal. 26. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.