JUDGMENT : Appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) against award, dated 9th March, 2018, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Shimla, Camp at Rohru, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘learned MACT’). 2. By virtue of the award, which has been assailed before this Court, the learned MACT has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and awarded a sum of Rs. 10,37,680/-, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till realization of the amount. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the lis are hereinafter referred to, as referred to by the learned MACT. 4. The Insurance Company (respondent No. 4) has preferred the appeal before this Court, as the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, alongwith interest, has been fastened upon it. 5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under: The claimants, being widow and minor sons of Shri Sohan Lal, have filed the claim petition before the learned MACT, seeking compensation, on account of death of Shri Sohan Lal, in a road side accident, on 26th November, 2015, involving vehicle No. HP-72-1307, being driven by respondent No. 1-Mohan Singh, owned by respondent No. 2-C&C Company and insured with respondent No. 4. 6. The claim petition has been filed on the ground that on 26th November, 2015, deceased-Sohan Lal was driving motor cycle, bearing registration No. HP-10A-7225 and when he had reached a place, near Mehandali, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., at about 2.30 p.m., the offending vehicle, i.e. Tipper, bearing registration No. HP-72-1307, came there, being driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, and crushed the motor cyclist (deceased-Sohan Lal). The matter was reported to the police of Police Station Rohru, whereupon FIR No. 119, dated 26th November, 2015, was registered. 7. The claimants have also pleaded about their bright past and bleak future. 8. On the basis of the factual position, qua the monthly earning of deceased, as Rs. 30,000/- per month, the claimants have sought the compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 Lacs, alongwith statutory interest, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the realization of the actual amount from the respondents. 8. On the basis of the factual position, qua the monthly earning of deceased, as Rs. 30,000/- per month, the claimants have sought the compensation to the tune of Rs. 30 Lacs, alongwith statutory interest, from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the realization of the actual amount from the respondents. 9. When put on notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 10. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have filed their reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable, whereas the factual position, which has been pleaded in the claim petition, has evasively been denied. However, in reply to para 24 of the claim petition, it has been pleaded that the deceased was driving the vehicle in question in a rash and negligent manner and could not control the vehicle. Consequently, the motor cycle hit the tipper. According to respondents No. 1 to 3, there was no negligence on the part of respondent No. 1. 11. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 4 has taken the preliminary objections regarding the fact that the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and that the deceased was also driving the vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 12. On merit, the factual position has mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 13. Thus, the respondents have prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 14. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned MACT has framed the following issues, vide order, dated 4th July, 2017: “1. Whether deceased Sohan Lal died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle bearing No. HP-72-1307 on 26.11.2015 at about 02.30 PM at place near Mehandali Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of compensation, if so, then what should be the quantum of compensation and from whom? 3. Whether the present petition is maintainable in its present form, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the present petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in contravention of provisions of M.V. Act, as alleged? 6. 3. Whether the present petition is maintainable in its present form, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the present petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and in contravention of provisions of M.V. Act, as alleged? 6. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? 7. Whether the petitioner has filed the present petition in collusion with the respondent No. 1, as alleged? OPR 8. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition, as alleged? OPR 9. Relief.” 15. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. Consequently, the claimants have examined claimant No. 1-Kalpna as PW-1, whereas, the respondents have examined Manoj Pant, HR Manager of C&C Company as RW-1 and respondent No. 1-Mohan Singh as RW-2. 16. After closure of the evidence, the learned MACT, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, has decided the claim petition and awarded the amount of compensation, as referred to above. 17. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the Insurance Company has assailed the award, on the ground that the award is based upon the surmises and conjectures, as the documents, which have been placed on record, were not rightly appreciated by the learned MACT. 18. Issue No. 1 is stated to have been wrongly decided, as the claimants have not examined any person to prove that the accident had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. Highlighting the fact that the only witness, who has been examined by the claimants, i.e. PW-1, has clearly stated that she was not present at the spot. As such, it has been argued that the sine quo non for claiming the compensation, in this case, has not been proved. 19. The award has also been assailed on the ground that it was incumbent upon the claimants to prove the negligence of the driver, which, according to the appellant, the claimants have miserably been failed to do so. 20. To buttress its contention, the Insurance Company has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meenu Bhai Mehta versus Baldrishna Ramchandra Nayan and others, 1977 ACJ 118 . 21. 20. To buttress its contention, the Insurance Company has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meenu Bhai Mehta versus Baldrishna Ramchandra Nayan and others, 1977 ACJ 118 . 21. The impugned award has also been assailed on the grounds that the best evidence has been withheld by the claimants, in this case, as they could have easily examined the pillion rider of the motor cycle. Also, that the learned MACT has not considered the FIR in the right perspective. 22. On all these grounds, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be accepted, by dismissing the claim petition. 23. The prayer, so made, by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has been opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the ground that the learned MACT has rightly appreciated the evidence and the award passed by the learned MACT deserves to be upheld. 24. I have heard submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and gone through the record carefully. 25. The Insurance Company has assailed the award mainly on the ground that the claimants have not proved the negligence of respondent No. 1 in driving the alleged offending vehicle and their failure to do so, is fatal for the case of the claimants, as there is nothing on the file to conclude that respondent No. 1 was tort feaser. 26. The entire attack, in the present appeal, is qua the fact that the claimants could not prove the sine quo non for claiming the compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act, i.e. negligence of respondent No. 1, while driving the offending vehicle. 27. The proceedings under the MV Act are summary in nature, where, the liability of the tort feaser is to be fixed on the principle of preponderance of the probability. The legislation, i.e. MV Act, is a beneficial piece of legislation. Strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable in the proceedings under MV Act. It is not incumbent upon the claimants to prove the negligence beyond reasonable doubt. While deciding the claim petition, it is to be borne in mind that strict proof of accident may not be possible to be proved by the claimants. They have to establish their case, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 28. It is not incumbent upon the claimants to prove the negligence beyond reasonable doubt. While deciding the claim petition, it is to be borne in mind that strict proof of accident may not be possible to be proved by the claimants. They have to establish their case, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 28. The claimants, in their claim petition, have categorically pleaded that the accident in question had arisen out of the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, while driving vehicle No. HP-72-1307. These facts have been pleaded in paras 10 and 24 of the claim petition. Respondents No. 1 to 3, although, have denied the contents of para 10, but, pleaded the fact in para 22, that, it was the deceased, who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and, as such, he could not control his vehicle and, consequently, the said vehicle has hit against the tipper, which was stated to be in stationary condition. 29. Since the onus was upon the claimants to prove issue No. 1, as such, claimant No. 1 appeared as PW-1. She has categorically stated that her husband was on the way from Rohru to Hatkoti and when reached near Mehandali, respondent No. 1 came there, driving the offending vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner and the accident took place. Consequently, her husband sustained injuries and died on the spot. She has proved the copy of the post mortem report, Ex. PA, and FIR, Ex. PB. She has again stated that the accident in question has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. 30. In her cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3, PW-1 has denied that the tipper was in a stationary condition, rather, voluntarily stated that Mohan Lal was driving the vehicle. However, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, she has admitted that she is not aware about the fact whether the vehicle was loaded or was empty. 31. However, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, she has admitted that she is not aware about the fact whether the vehicle was loaded or was empty. 31. From the above deposition, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company could not satisfy the conscience of the Court as to how and in which manner, an inference could have been drawn by the Insurance Company that claimant No. 1 was not present at the spot and the claimants have failed to prove the fact that the accident in question had taken place. 32. No doubt, the contents of the FIR can be looked into as this document has been produced on the file by the claimants themselves. Admittedly, the FIR was not lodged by making a statement on oath, as such, much reliance cannot be placed on the version, as contained in the FIR, whereas, PW-1 has deposed on oath, regarding the manner, in which, the accident in question had taken place and nothing material could be elicited from her cross-examination. Rather, the tone and tenor of the cross-examination clearly shows that her deposition qua the manner, in which the accident in question had taken place, has not seriously been disputed by the respondents. Even, suggestion has not been given to her that she was not present, at the time, when the accident in question, had allegedly taken place. 33. Although, the FIR in question has been produced by claimant No. 1 herself, but, from this fact, it cannot be concluded that she was aware about the contents of the FIR. Considering the low legal literacy of the common masses, it cannot be expected from claimant No. 1 that she was aware about the contents of the FIR. Moreover, no efforts have been made by the respondents to bring the factual position, as contained in the FIR, to the knowledge of claimant No. 1, when she appeared in the witness box, as PW-1. Merely, the FIR in question has been produced by the claimants, no adverse inference could be drawn against them. There is nothing on the file, from where, any help could be derived by the appellant, to discard the direct evidence of PW-1. 34. In such situation, there is no occasion for this Court to discard the version of PW-1, qua the manner, in which, the accident in question had taken place. 35. There is nothing on the file, from where, any help could be derived by the appellant, to discard the direct evidence of PW-1. 34. In such situation, there is no occasion for this Court to discard the version of PW-1, qua the manner, in which, the accident in question had taken place. 35. Even otherwise, RW-2, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, when appeared in the witness box, has deposed in the cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, that on seeing the motor cycle, being driven by the deceased in a fast speed, he has parked his vehicle on the hill side, but, in the cross-examination by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has again admitted that at the time of accident, his vehicle was in a moving condition. 36. The vehicle in question, as per the evidence of RW-2, was under his exclusive control and, as such, onus was upon him to probabilize the fact that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. His sole statement is too short to probabilize his stand. The other persons, namely, the author, who had allegedly lodged the FIR, was travelling in the offending vehicle driven by respondent No. 1, but, for the reasons, best known to respondents No. 1 to 3, neither the said material witness has been examined nor respondent No. 4 has bothered to call the said person to prove the contents of FIR. 37. From the above facts, only one inference could be drawn that had the said witness been examined by them, he would have deposed against them. 38. At the cost of repetition, not much reliance can be placed on the contents of the FIR, as the same were not recorded on the statement given on oath. 39. The FIR in question has been registered on the basis of the statement of one Upender Ram, who has, admittedly, not been examined by the respondents, in this case. As such, no benefit could be derived by the Insurance Company on the basis of this document. 40. A futile attempt has also been made by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, in this case, when he has relied upon the final report in Case FIR No. 119, dated 26th November, 2015. As such, no benefit could be derived by the Insurance Company on the basis of this document. 40. A futile attempt has also been made by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, in this case, when he has relied upon the final report in Case FIR No. 119, dated 26th November, 2015. By virtue of this document, the police has requested the Court to drop the proceedings, in this case, but, there is nothing on the record to show whether this report has been accepted by the Court or not. There is nothing on the file to show that the police had ever associated the pillion rider of motor cycle in the investigation of the case. 41. Judging the above facts, in the light of the decision of their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meenu Bhai Mehta’s case (supra), this Court is of the view that the claimants, on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, have proved that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, Mohan Singh. 42. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to differ with the findings qua the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1, in this case, as recorded by the learned MACT. 43. No other point has been urged or argued. 44. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the learned MACT is upheld. 45. No order as to costs. 46. Record be sent back.