JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.08.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.176 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge at Rajahmundry, M/s.Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Manager, the 3rd respondent, preferred this appeal questioning award, the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of 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 compensation for the death of Saka Suresh Kumar @ Pandu, who died in a Motor vehicle accident. The claimants 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased. Their relationship with the deceased is not in dispute. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 21.08.2010 the deceased was returning on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 BK 2092 from Kadiyam and when he reached FCI go-down at about 10.30 PM, a motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 BH 5389 hereinafter be referred as ‘offending motor cycle’ came in opposite direction from Dawaleswaram and dashed the motor cycle. 5. It is not in dispute that the first respondent is the driver, second respondent is the owner and the third respondent is the insurer of the offending motor vehicle. The said case of the claimants is also not in dispute. The respondents 1 and 2 have remained ex-parte. 6. The third respondent filed its counter contending that the deceased was the rider of the motor cycle and he was unable to control the motor cycle and dashed the motor cycle driven by the first respondent. The accident arose on account of negligence of the deceased and the first respondent was not at all negligent. 7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate issues. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A. 13 on behalf of the claimants. R.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.X.1 on behalf of the respondents. 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident in question arose due to the negligence of the first respondent, who is the rider of the offending motor cycle and not on account of the negligence of the deceased. R.Ws.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.X.1 on behalf of the respondents. 8. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the accident in question arose due to the negligence of the first respondent, who is the rider of the offending motor cycle and not on account of the negligence of the deceased. Respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and awarded an amount of Rs.9,17,092/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 9. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties. 10. Learned Counsel for the appellant /3rd respondent contends that at the time of accident the deceased was riding the bike along with two pillion riders with baggage and lost control and the same was established by Ex.X.1; the tribunal below ought to have fixed the contributory negligence; and the tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased’s mother, but not the deceased; and the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties; and the tribunal has failed to determine the salary of the deceased. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondents/ claimants supported the Tribunal's findings and observations. 12. Now the points for consideration are, I. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor cycle’s driver or the deceased or due to contributory negligence of both the riders? II. Whether the compensation fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT No.I a. The offending motor cycle is insured by the 3rd respondent, and the insurance policy in force at the time of the accident is not in dispute. The death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident is also not disputed. It is also evident by Ex.A.1- attested copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2-attested copy of PME report, Ex.A.3-attested copy of inquest report and Ex.A.5-attested copy of charge sheet. b. The first claimant was examined as P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased. He stated in his chief-affidavit about the manner of the accident. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not witness the accident. To establish the negligence on the part of the first respondent, the claimants got examined P.W.3-S.Manoj Kumar. His evidence shows that himself, the deceased and Vinod were going on the motor cycle driven by the deceased along with bags. In the cross-examination he stated that he did not witness the accident. To establish the negligence on the part of the first respondent, the claimants got examined P.W.3-S.Manoj Kumar. His evidence shows that himself, the deceased and Vinod were going on the motor cycle driven by the deceased along with bags. As seen from the contest of the respondents, it is also their stand that the deceased was proceeding along with two others on motor cycle at the time of accident and it also contributed to the accident. The third respondent got examined R.W.1-B.Hari Krishna, who deposed that the deceased violated the permit conditions as two pillion riders were proceeding on the motor cycle at the time of accident. The third respondent also got examined R.W.2-G.Rajagopala Rao to prove that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Ex.X.1-attested copy of rough sketch was marked. It is not the evidence of R.W.2 that he witnessed the accident in question. R.W.2 worked as S.I. of police previously. He held investigation in Crime No.91 of 2010. His evidence shows that the vehicle of the deceased was on the extreme right side of the road. He filed Ex.A.5-charge sheet against the first respondent. As per Ex.A.5, first respondent was negligent but not the deceased. The evidence of R.W.2 is no way useful to the case of the third respondent. R.W.1 also stated that he was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Thus the respondents have not let in oral evidence in support of their case. Simply because it is proved that three persons were proceeding on the motor cycle, it cannot be said that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle in the absence of any evidence on record. c. The Investigating Officer observed that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver. No evidence is placed by the respondents 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 , this High Court observed that: “when the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. No evidence is placed by the respondents 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 , this High Court observed 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 totally incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false”. d. In Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC), 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 touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied”. e. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle without conducting proper investigation and also it is difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. The rider of the offending vehicle is the best person to speak about the accident. The insurance company has not taken steps to examine him as witness to prove its case. It has not explained any reason for not taking such steps. f. 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. 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. 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. g. The reading of the documents placed before Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of rider of the offending vehicle. When it contends that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the deceased, the respondent has to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal basing on which the tribunal is expected to give its own conclusion. The tribunal has accepted the case of the claimants regarding manner of accident and also accepted the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet making the driver of offending vehicle responsible for the accident. As already observed the contents of the charge sheet also support the case of claimants regarding the manner of the accident. There is no material placed by the appellant to show that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the deceased, and he contributed to the accident. h. The rider of the offending vehicle is the best person to speak about the manner of an accident. The third respondent has not taken steps to prove the manner of the accident by summoning the first respondent to establish that he did not ride the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of the accident, as alleged by the claimants. i. This Court believes that negligence or contributory negligence must be proved like any other fact. There are no different standards for proving negligence or contributory negligence. But they cannot be decided on suspicion or surprise. The pleas taken in the counter will remain not substantiated by acceptable, relevant and legal evidence. There must be cogent evidence to prove contributory negligence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle. In the absence of convincing evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, the common law doctrine cannot be applied in the present case. There are no details of contributory negligence in the counter, and no evidence is also put forth except alleging a stray sentence in the counter. How the accident happened leaves no doubt that the rider of the offending vehicle was solely negligent in causing the said accident. There are no details of contributory negligence in the counter, and no evidence is also put forth except alleging a stray sentence in the counter. How the accident happened leaves no doubt that the rider of the offending vehicle was solely negligent 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. j. A normal rule is for the claimant to prove the negligence. But in accident cases, hardship is caused to the claimants as the actual cause of the accident is not known to them but is solely within the knowledge of the respondent who caused it. It will then be for the respondent to establish the accident due to some other cause than his negligence. As the respondents did not choose to examine the rider of the offending vehicle who was involved in the accident, and he did not enter into the box to explain the manner of the accident, there is no ocular evidence led in by the respondents. k. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this Court views that the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence and observed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by the first respondent, which cannot be found fault with. Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered. POINT No.II a. Basing on Ex.A.6-salary certificate the tribunal has taken an amount of Rs.8,399/- as monthly earnings of the deceased, after making deductions as per Ex.A.6. The tribunal applied the multiplier 18 by coming to a conclusion regarding the age of the deceased as 23 years basing on Ex.A.2-PME certificate and Ex.A.3- inquest report. The finding of the tribunal regarding the age is not disputed. However, it is the contention of the appellant/ third respondent that the age of the deceased’s mother to be taken into consideration. The finding of the tribunal regarding the age is not disputed. However, it is the contention of the appellant/ third respondent that the age of the deceased’s mother to be taken into consideration. In similar circumstances, a three-Judge bench of the Apex Court, in Royal Sundaram Alliance vs Mandala Yadagari Goud, 2019 ACJ 1644 , by referring to the principles laid down in Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh, 2018 ACJ 737 (S.C.) and Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, 2013 ACJ 1253 (S.C.), it was categorically taken the view that the age of the deceased and not the age of the parents would be the factor to take the multiplier to be applied. The relevant portion of the Judgment, in paragraphs 11 to 13, is extracted hereunder: "11..…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 personal and 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 (supra) categorically states that it does not want to re-visit the law settled in Sarla Verma on this behalf. 12….the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Ltd., V. Pranay Sethi 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.) has also been referred to in Sube Singh v. Shyam Singh 2018 ACJ 737 (S.C.). 13.….there is no need to take up 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." b. Following the principle laid down by the Apex in Royal Sundaram’s case (supra), Sube Singh’s case (supra), and Reshma Kumari’s case (supra), this Court views that the tribunal rightly took the age of the deceased in determining the loss of earnings. Since the deceased was a bachelor, the tribunal deducted 50% of the income towards his personal expenses. Thus the tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs.1,00,788/- and after deducting the 50% of the amount by applying multiplier, fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.9,07,092/- and awarded conventional heads and fixed the compensation Rs.9,17,092/-. The claimants have not questioned the quantum of compensation as awarded by the tribunal, by filing appeal or cross objections. Thus the tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs.1,00,788/- and after deducting the 50% of the amount by applying multiplier, fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.9,07,092/- and awarded conventional heads and fixed the compensation Rs.9,17,092/-. The claimants have not questioned the quantum of compensation as awarded by the tribunal, by filing appeal or cross objections. The tribunal fixed the just compensation basing on the documents relied on by the claimants. As such it is difficult to appreciate the stand taken by the third respondent regarding the quantum of compensation. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered. c. Given the aforementioned discussion, I do not find any substance in the appeal. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal. 13. Accordingly, the appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed without costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.