JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.1 in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondent no.1. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.04.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge-F.T.C.VI-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants on the ground that they failed to prove that the death of the deceased- Shamsher Ansari was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. The brief facts of the case is that on 15.10.2005 when the deceased- Shamsher Ansari was going to the market, the offending motorcycle being rashly and negligently driven, dashed the deceased due to which the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. It is stated that the deceased was running a tailoring shop and the whole family of the deceased was dependent upon him. The deceased was stated to be aged 30 years as is mentioned in his postmortem report and it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month from his occupation in the said tailoring shop. 5. The insurance company in its written statement before the Tribunal has expressed ignorance about the entire averments made in the claim petition and pleaded that the Tribunal direct the applicants to produce the FIR and charge sheet to prove its case. 6. The owner of the vehicle in his written statement has not disputed the averments made in paragraph nos.1 to 13 in the claim petition except the monthly income of the deceased. The owner of the vehicle pleaded that the offending motorcycle was insured with the opposite party no.2- insurance company and the period of policy was from 12.04.2005 to 11.04.2006. 7. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- (i) Whether the claim petition as framed and filed maintainable? (ii) Whether there is cause of action for filing the claim petition? (iii) Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased? (iv) Whether the deceased- Shamsher Ansari died on 15.10.2005 at 11:00 am being dashed by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-05G-6420 being rashly and negligently driven? (v) Whether the motorcycle bearing registration no. (ii) Whether there is cause of action for filing the claim petition? (iii) Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased? (iv) Whether the deceased- Shamsher Ansari died on 15.10.2005 at 11:00 am being dashed by the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-05G-6420 being rashly and negligently driven? (v) Whether the motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-05G-6420 was insured with the opposite party no.2-insurance company on 15.10.2005 and whether the period of insurance was valid? (vi) Whether the owner being M/s. Goel Roadways of the offending vehicle bearing registration no. JH-05G-6420 has violated any condition of the insurance policy? (vii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation under Section 166 of M.V. Act and if yes, then to how much amount and who is to pay the compensation? (viii) Whether the claimants are entitled to any relief? 8. In support of their case, the claimants have examined two witnesses being the claimants themselves. Besides the oral testimonies, the claimants also proved the certified copy of the charge sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle namely Ashish Jha which has been marked Ext. P1 and certified copy of the FIR of the case has been marked Ext. P2. Both the claimants being the witnesses have stated about the accident taking place at 11:00 am on 15.10.2005 and the offending motorcycle being rashly and negligently driven dashed the deceased who succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident in course of his treatment at T.M.H. on the same day of the occurrence and he was earning Rs.5,000/- and was running the house. The examination-in-chief of both the claimants who were examined as A.W.1 and A.W.2 was filed in shape of affidavit. A.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that she did not intimate the number of the vehicle to the Advocate and if the same has been mentioned in the affidavit, she has no knowledge about the same. She has not been put any question by the insurance company regarding the manner of accident. She further stated that she is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. A.W.2-Nazir Ansari in his cross-examination has stated that he can say the number of the motorcycle. 9. From the side of the insurance company one witness was examined being O.P.W.-1. She has not been put any question by the insurance company regarding the manner of accident. She further stated that she is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. A.W.2-Nazir Ansari in his cross-examination has stated that he can say the number of the motorcycle. 9. From the side of the insurance company one witness was examined being O.P.W.-1. O.P.W.1- Arun Kumar Tiwary in his examination-in-chief filed in shape of affidavit has stated that during investigation, he found that the deceased- Shamsher Ansari was unemployed. The claimant no.2- Md. Nazir Ansari is the owner of the tailoring shop. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot produce any documentary evidence to the effect that the deceased was an unemployed person. 10. The learned Tribunal took up issue no. (v) and (vi) together and answered that the offending vehicle was insured by the opposite party no.2- insurance company and the opposite party no.2-insurance company could not establish any violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal took up issue no. (iv) and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the claimants cannot establish that the offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner and dismissed the claim petition. 11. Mr. D.K. Karmakar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred by arriving at the conclusion that the claimants have failed to prove that the death of the deceased- Shamsher Ansari was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Mallamma vs. Balaji and Others reported in [2003 (2) T.A.C. 428 (Kant.)], paragraph nos.7 and 12 of which reads as under :- “7. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has observed that in Ex. P. 2-complaint, it is written that one Virupaksha Gaddeger informed the complainant Ramanna about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by respondent 1 and about the accidental death of late Bhimaraya and the injuries caused to bullocks. Of course, the appellant herein is a rustic village lady and she has not examined the said Viru-pakshappa Gaddeger who is said to have been informed Ramanna is not a fatal to the case of the claimant. Of course, the appellant herein is a rustic village lady and she has not examined the said Viru-pakshappa Gaddeger who is said to have been informed Ramanna is not a fatal to the case of the claimant. It is a well-settled law that the strict rules of the Indian Evidence Act need not be applied in a case of motor vehicle accident to prove negligence. In para 11 of the judgment the Tribunal has observed that the claimant has not proved the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Of course, the initial burden lies on the claimant when the respondents themselves have taken a specific plea that the deceased was himself responsible for accident and his death and hence, the burden automatically shifts on them. Further, the observation made by the learned Tribunal in para 11 of the judgment to the effect that eye-witness is the only competent person to speak the exact facts of the case appears to be not proper. If the accident occurred on the highway that too in the early morning which is not proper to accept the evidence of any eye-witness because, the deceased was an agricultural labourer working in a remote village of Chittapur Taluk and his duty was to take the bullocks of his master to go to the agricultural land and to plough the same. Even in the near villages the agricultural coolies carry their belongings in the early morning to go to their respective village for agricultural work i.e., harvesting, ploughing etc. Such being the case, it is not proper to expect any eye-witness to the accident. Sometimes the eye-witness may not come forward to give evidence for the various reasons. In the instant case, appellant happens to be a poor woman and she might not have been instructed to bring some eye-witness to speak with regard to the accident. That itself is not a good ground to disbelieve the version of the claimant/appellant. So, having regard to the date, time and place of the accident, the manner in which the deceased Bhimaraya sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and also nature of the injuries sustained to the bullocks, which is just and proper to hold that the principles of res ipsa loquitur are very much applicable to the facts on hand.” 12. Therefore, under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion and held that the claimant has not proved the negligence on the part of the driver of the milk van involved in the accident. Filing of the charge-sheet against the driver is also a prima facie case to hold that the driver of the said lorry was responsible for the accident and burden shifts on him to prove the same.” (Emphasis supplied) It is submitted that basing upon the evidence in the record, the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the death of the deceased- Shamsher Ansari was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the claimants by awarded just compensation. 12. Mr. Alok Lal appearing on behalf of Mr. G.C. Ghose, on the other hand submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that the death of the deceased- Shamsher Ansari has occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the insurance company is not liable. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the following points for determination crop up for consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether the learned Tribunal erred by arriving at the conclusion that the evidence in the record did not establish that the death of Shamsher Ansari was caused by rash and negligent driving? (ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation if yes, from whom and how much? 14. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486 , paragraph nos.25 to 28 of which reads as under :- 25. The Tribunal had justly accepted the appellants' contention that the respondents did not challenge the propriety of the said FIR No. 247 of 2011 (Ext. 1) and charge-sheet (Ext. 2) before any authority. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486 , paragraph nos.25 to 28 of which reads as under :- 25. The Tribunal had justly accepted the appellants' contention that the respondents did not challenge the propriety of the said FIR No. 247 of 2011 (Ext. 1) and charge-sheet (Ext. 2) before any authority. The only defence raised by the respondents to this plea was that the said FIR No. 247 of 2011 was based on wrong facts and was filed in connivance between the appellant complainants and the police, against which the respondents complained to the incharge of the police station and the District Superintendent of Police but to no avail. Apart from this bald assertion, no evidence was produced by the respondents before the Tribunal to prove this point. The filing of the FIR was followed by the filing of the charge-sheet against Respondent 2 for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC and Sections 134/187 of the Act, which, again, reinforces the allegations in the said FIR insofar as the occurrence of the accident was concerned and the role of Respondent 2 in causing such accident. Be that as it may, the High Court has not even made a mention, let alone record a finding, of any impropriety against FIR No. 247/2011 (Ext. 1) or chargesheet (Ext. 2) or the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in that regard. Yet, the FIR and charge-sheet has been found to be deficient by the High Court. 26. Before the Tribunal, Respondent 1 has neither denied that Respondent 2 was in its employment at the time of the accident nor has it denied that Respondent 2 was driving the offending Bus No. RJ 26/PA 0042 at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has also referred to the post-mortem report (Ext. 4) which establishes that Sitaram died due to shock arising from various fractures on his body, which, undoubtedly, were rendered due to his accident with the offending bus. All of the aforesaid evidence remained uncontroverted. While the Tribunal has accepted these depositions and the evidence presented in that regard, the High Court has, surprisingly, not even referred to it or even the numerous documents presented by the said witnesses as evidence, apart from a passing reference to FIR No. 247/2011 (Ext. 1). 27. The Tribunal's reliance upon FIR No. 247/2011 (Ext. While the Tribunal has accepted these depositions and the evidence presented in that regard, the High Court has, surprisingly, not even referred to it or even the numerous documents presented by the said witnesses as evidence, apart from a passing reference to FIR No. 247/2011 (Ext. 1). 27. The Tribunal's reliance upon FIR No. 247/2011 (Ext. 1) and charge-sheet (Ext. 2) also cannot be faulted as these documents indicate the complicity of Respondent 2. The FIR and charge-sheet, coupled with the other evidence on record, inarguably establishes the occurrence of the fatal accident and also point towards the negligence of Respondent 2 in causing the said accident. Even if the final outcome of the criminal proceedings against Respondent 2 is unknown, the same would make no difference at least for the purposes of deciding the claim petition under the Act. This Court in Mangla Ram [Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 335 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 819], noted that the nature of proof required to establish culpability under criminal law is far higher than the standard required under the law of torts to create liability. 28. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in upholding the finding recorded by the Tribunal that there was an accident on 28-10-2011 at around 7 a.m. between the motorcycle driven by Sitaram bearing Registration No. RJ 25 SA 6923 and a bus belonging to Respondent 1 (the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation) bearing Registration No. RJ 26/PA 0042 coming from the opposite direction and being driven rashly and negligently by Respondent 2, which resulted in the death of Sitaram.” (Emphasis supplied) Thus from the aforesaid judgment it is crystal clear that in the absence of any contra evidence from the respondents, the FIR, the charge sheet and post-mortem report is suggests that the death of any deceased was caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of any offending vehicle, in the absence of any oral testimony of any eye witness to the occurrence also in a motor vehicle accident claims case, the tribunal can arrive at the conclusion, that the death of the deceased occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 849, paragraph no.8 of which reads as under :- “8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW-1 as well as PW-3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal or indicator. The evidence of PW-1 & PW-3 is categorical and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver of Eicher van, the High Court has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW-1 herself travelled in the very car and PW-3, who has given statement before the police, was examined as eyewitness. In view of such evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to the contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the First Information Report. In the judgment, relied on by the appellant's counsel in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Premlata Shukla, this Court has held that proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, is therefore, sine qua non for maintaining an application under Section 166 of the Act. In the said judgment, it is held that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. In the judgment in the case of Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, this Court has held, on facts, that the car of the appellant therein, which crashed into truck which was proceeding in front of the same, was driven negligently by not maintaining sufficient distance as contemplated under Road Regulations, framed under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not, there cannot be any straitjacket formula. Each case is judged having regard to facts of the case and evidence on record. Having regard to evidence in the present case on hand, we are of the view that both the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, would not render any assistance in support of his case.” (Emphasis supplied) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case has observed that in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Premlata Shukla 2007 (13) SCC 476 it has been held that the factum of an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report though there cannot be any straitjacket formula as to whether driver of the vehicle was negligent or not. 15. It is also a settled principle of law that in cases relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-9 in the case of Kusum Lata and Others vs. Satbir and Others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 646 . In case of Parameshwari vs. Amir Chand and Others reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph-13 reiterated that in a road accident claim, the strict principles of proof as in a criminal case are not attracted. In the case of Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others reported in (2009) 13 SCC 530 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and that standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. In the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors. reported in (1980) 3 SCC 457 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in accident cases, the Accident Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because some doubt here or some obscurity there. 16. (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal & Ors. reported in (1980) 3 SCC 457 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in accident cases, the Accident Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because some doubt here or some obscurity there. 16. This Court is of the considered view that as a general rule, production of charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. Ofcourse, if charge sheet submitted by police does not satisfy the judicial conscience of the Tribunal, the Tribunal can reject it but that has to be by cogent and conscientious reasons as to why it does not satisfy the judicial conscience of the Tribunal. 17. Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly, it is not the case of any of the respondents that the accident did not take place or that the deceased- Shamsher Ansari died of being dashed by the offending vehicle being rashly and negligently driven by its driver. The charge sheet is supported by the testimonies of the witnesses being A.W.1 and A.W.2 and the testimony of A.W.2 remains unchallenged regarding the factum of accident. The tribunal has not signed any reason as to why it disbelieved the contents of the charge-sheet, First Information Report and the post-mortem nor it has considered the same. The respondents has not adduced any evidence contradicting the claim of the claimants that the deceased died because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal erred by holding that the claimants have failed to establish that the death of the deceased- Shamsher Ansari was caused because of the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. This Court is of the considered view that the evidence in the record is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that the death of Shamsher Ansari was caused by accident because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. The first point of determination is answered accordingly. 18. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, the unchallenged testimony of O.P.W.1 is that the deceased was an unemployed person. The first point of determination is answered accordingly. 18. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, the unchallenged testimony of O.P.W.1 is that the deceased was an unemployed person. The said portion of the testimony of O.P.W.1 has remained unchallenged. The claimants could not produce any document to show that the deceased was doing any tailoring work in the tailoring shop of his father. It is common knowledge that any established tailoring shop has receipt books which the bears the handwriting of the person taking the measurement of the cloth to be stitched. But even that was not produced by the claimants without any plausible reason. Under such circumstances this court has no hesitation in holding that the deceased was an unemployed person. So keeping in view the fact that the accident took place in the year 2005, the income of the deceased can be assessed as Rs.3,000/- per month as notional income, he being an unemployed person. Keeping in view that the deceased was an unmarried person, half of the income of the deceased is deducted towards his personal expenses. So his monthly contribution comes to Rs.1,500/- per month that is annually Rs.18,000/-. Since, the age of the deceased is 30 years, the multiplier 17 is to be applied in view of the settled principle of law settled in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 , the total income comes to Rs.3,06,000/- and further the claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- towards conventional head. So the total amount comes to Rs.3,76,000/- and since the Tribunal has already held that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation amount, hence this Court is of the considered view that the opposite party no.2-insurance company is liable to pay Rs.3,76,000/- less the amount of Rs.50,000/-which has been paid under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum within three months from the date of this Judgment. The second point for determination is answered accordingly. 19. The second point for determination is answered accordingly. 19. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is set aside and the opposite party no.2-insurance company is directed to pay Rs.3,76,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum less the amount of Rs.50,000/- already paid under Section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act within three months from the date of this Judgment. 20. This appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any costs. 21. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.