JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the award dated 31.01.2011 in MVOP.No.187 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Judge-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the 2nd respondent/the new India Assurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, filed this appeal questioning the award passed by the tribunal granting compensation amount to the petitioner in MVOP. 2. For convenience sake, hereinafter the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in MVOP.No.187 of 2009. 3. The petitioner, the son of deceased filed petition under Sections 140, 166 of Motor Vehicles At read with rules 455 and 476 of AP MV Rules praying to grant compensation amount of Rs.22,00,000/- for the death of Ketavath Sankar alleging that on 16.01.2008 the deceased along with his family members namely his wife, daughter and mother were returning to Naidupalem from Tirupathi in a car bearing registration number AP24R4488 and when the car reached Addanki Narkedipalli Highway, a lorry bearing registration number AP26W2440 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car and as a result, the deceased and his family members who sustained injuries died on the spot. The driver of the car i.e., the petitioner herein became unconscious and a case in crime number 4 of 2008 was registered against the petitioner on the report given by VRO, later petitioner approached Rompicherla police station and gave a report, but no action was taken and he filed private complaint and same was forwarded to police for investigation and a case in crime number 42 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the lorry. 4. The 1st respondent remained exparte, the 2nd respondent/insurance company filed counter by disputing the manner of accident as averred in the petition and denied the lorry was having valid insurance policy coverage and denying the fact that driver of the lorry was having valid driving license at the time of accident and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of lorry and the accident occurred due to collision of two vehicles. 5. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal formulated appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal on behalf of petitioner PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked and on behalf of 2nd respondent RWs.1 and 2 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 6. 5. Based on the pleadings the Tribunal formulated appropriate issues. Before the Tribunal on behalf of petitioner PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked and on behalf of 2nd respondent RWs.1 and 2 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and respondent and perused the record. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the claimant himself had contributed the accident and the contents of Ex.A1 FIR and Ex.A3 inquest report show the same and in the inquest report it is narrated that due to the fog the petitioner without observing the vehicle coming in opposite direction went on wrong side and dashed against the opposite vehicle and the 1st respondent is being major and not dependant on his father. The report given by VRO clearly shows that the car was going on wrong side of the road. The car being driven by the 1st respondent/petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and so the petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for respondents appreciated the findings and observations of the tribunal. 8. Now the points for determination are whether the driver of the lorry bearing registration number AP26W2440 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently or whether the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner in MVOP and whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable. POINT : 9. After careful reading of the material on record it can be seen that the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident is not disputed. To prove the manner of accident the petitioner himself examined as PW.1. It is not in dispute that he was driving the car bearing registration number AP24R4488 at the time of accident. It is the contention of the respondent that at the first instance the FIR is registered against the petitioner alleging that he caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving of the car bearing car bearing registration number AP24R4488 at the time of accident and it is contended that two vehicles are involved in the accident it is the case of head on collision between two vehicles. The petitioner relied on Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in crime number 4 of 2018. The petitioner relied on Ex.A1 is the certified copy of FIR in crime number 4 of 2018. On report by RW.2 by name Subbareddy who was working as VRO, Romicherla, the said FIR came to be registered. The said case of the insurance company is not disputed by the petitioner and it is admitted in the claim petition also. But it is the grievance of the petitioner that as such report was given with incorrect facts he submitted a report to the Romicherla Police, but no action was taken and he filed a private complaint before II Additional Junior Civil Jude, Narsaraopeta and the same was forwarded to police for investigation and a case in crime number of 42 of 2008 was registered against the driver of the lorry. The burden is on the petitioner to establish that the accident occurred in the manner alleged by him. PW.1 is the driver of the car bearing registration number AP24R4488 at the time of accident. According to his evidence when his car was proceeding on Addankinarkedipalli state highway in the early hours at about 03.30AM the offending lorry came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. As observed by the tribunal he was cross examined at length on behalf of insurance company and nothing is elicited to discredit his evidence. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner got examined PW.2 K.Pushpadevi who is relative of the petitioner. Her evidence shows that she and her family members were proceeding in another car behind the car driven by the petitioner and she noticed the accident and that the driver of the lorry caused the accident. The evidence of PW.1 is supported by the evidence of PW.2 with regard to the manner of accident. To prove the lodging of the report the respondent/insurance company got examined RW.2 - P.Subbareddy who lodged the report about the accident. Basing on the evidence on record the tribunal observed that admittedly RW.2 was not an eye witness to the accident and he gave report basing on the information received from the persons gathered at the accident site and also forming his opinion by observation of the situation of the vehicles on the road. Thus, it is an individual opinion of the witness about the accident and further more RW.2 has not given the names of persons who gave information about the accident. Thus, it is an individual opinion of the witness about the accident and further more RW.2 has not given the names of persons who gave information about the accident. The respondent/insurance company has not chosen to examine the persons who provided information to RW.2 about the accident. In the said facts of the case the tribunal is justified in coming to a conclusion that the evidence of RW.2 is hearsay version and he is not a direct eye witness to the accident. In the said facts of the case the tribunal has not given much weight to the evidence of RW.2 as there is a direct evidence explaining how the accident took place and it has given due importance to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who stated their version on oath before the tribunal. The material on record shows that the one complaint is registered against the petitioner in MVOP basing on the report of RW.2 and another report is registered basing on the private complaint by the petitioner against the lorry driver. It is not in dispute that the lorry driver surrendered before the court and got released on bail. Though it is contended that the charge sheet could not be filed against the lorry driver due to his death. No material is placed to show as to why the charge sheet is not filed in this case. The tribunal observed that admittedly the police have not filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. In the said facts of the case the tribunal observed that as to why the charge sheet is not filed against the petitioner when he drove the vehicle rashly or negligently is not explained by the insurance company. The insurance company has relied on Ex.A2 inquest report wherein it is shown in column No.15 that the accident occurred that due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the petitioner. The purpose of inquest is to know the cause of death and thereby the tribunal observed that at whose negligence the accident occurred is not within the province of inquest enquiry. 10. Merely because the crime is registered against petitioner basing on the report lodged by RW.2, who admittedly is not an eye witness to the incident, it cannot be presumed that the allegations therein are correct. 10. Merely because the crime is registered against petitioner basing on the report lodged by RW.2, who admittedly is not an eye witness to the incident, it cannot be presumed that the allegations therein are correct. In the cross examination RW.2 stated that he doesn’t know the actual facts in relation to the occurrence of the accident and he heard about the accident from the people gathered in front of his house. In view of the said evidence of RW.2 this court is of view that much importance cannot be attached to the evidence of RW.2 and also the contents of Ex.A1 report which was given by him. On the other hand the insurance company has not taken steps to prove file scene observation report or rough sketch of the scene of offence to come to a conclusion on the contentions raised by both parties. As already observed there is no material placed to show that the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner herein based on the report lodged by RW.2. Basing on the oral evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and more particularly the presence of PW.1 is also established being a driver of the car, the tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry driver. 11. In a proceeding under the M.V.Act, where procedure is a summary procedure, there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence. 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 claim petition can be looked into for giving a finding in respect of happening of the accident and for reaching conclusion. The preponderance of probabilities is the touch stone for arriving at a conclusion regarding rashness and negligent as well as mode and manner of happening of the accident. 12. This court is of view that either the negligence or the contributory negligence must be proved like any other fact, there is no different standards for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. 12. This court is of view that either the negligence or the contributory negligence must be proved like any other fact, there is no different standards for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. The pleas taken in the written statement filed by the insurance company will remain as pleas as they are not substantiated by acceptable, relevant and legal evidence. To prove the contributory negligence there must be cogent evidence. In the instant case there is no specific evidence to prove that the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the petitioner. In the absence of any cogent evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the said doctrine of common law cannot be applied in the present case. Although there is no details of contributory negligence in the written statement and no evidence is also put forth except alleging stray sentence in the written statement. The manner in which the accident happened as deposed by PW.1 leaves no manner of doubt that the driver of the offending lorry was solely negligent in causing said accident. While granting reliefs under the act, the courts are not to be bound by mere technicalities but would adopt a liberal approach by giving the law a wider construction and meaning that would favour the victims. 13. Upon careful reading of the material on record this court is of view that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle holds good. 14. The case of the petitioner that he is dependant on the earnings of the deceased is not disputed. It is not the case of respondent that the petitioner is doing job or earning amounts by any other modes. As seen from the petition averments the petitioner is aged about 22 years as on the date of accident. The petitioner has taken a specific plea in the petition that the petitioner lost his future dependency and support due to death of deceased. The same version deposed by PW.1 in his evidence and it is not disputed. In the said facts of the case there is no difficulty to come to a conclusion that he is dependant on the earnings of the deceased. The same version deposed by PW.1 in his evidence and it is not disputed. In the said facts of the case there is no difficulty to come to a conclusion that he is dependant on the earnings of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as Assistant Engineer, Irrigation Department, Nalgonda and according to the case of petitioner the deceased was drawing Rs.23,000/- per month towards his salary. To establish the said fact the petitioner examined PW.3 - P.Ramireddy who is Senior Assistant of office of Executive Engineer and produced Ex.X1 which is salary cum certificate of the deceased and it shows that the gross salary of deceased was Rs.16,802/- per month and after deduction of 1/3rd salary of deceased towards personal expenses of deceased his contribution to the family is arrived at Rs.10,760/- and the multiplier 13 is applied basing on the age of the deceased at the time of accident and the loss of income is arrived at Rs.16,78,560/- and the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The petitioner in MVOP has not preferred any appeal or cross objection regarding quantum of compensation and it has attained finality. 15. In view of aforementioned discussion I don’t find any substance in the appeal, I don’t find any reason to interfere the impugned order in the present appeal. Accordingly the appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed without costs and the order passed by the tribunal is hereby confirmed. 16. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.