JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.07.2006 in M.V.O.P. No. 661 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari District (for short, "the Tribunal"), the third respondent, National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Eluru, preferred the present appeal seeking dismissal of the M.V.O.P. 2. The parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules as per Act (Amended) 54 of 1994, seeking compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.06.2004. 4. The claimant's case is that on 02.06.2004 at about 10.00 AM, while he was proceeding on his T.V.S. scooter from Velleru village to Hanuman junction to get cool drink bottles, and when he reached a burial ground, an auto bearing No.A.P. 16 X 7427 (for short, "the offending vehicle") driven by its driver, i.e., the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without blowing its horn, dashed the claimant. As a result, the claimant fell and sustained grievous injuries all over his body. He was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru, for treatment and spent an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards medical treatment. 5. The first respondent, the offending vehicle's driver, remained exparte. 6. The second respondent, the offending vehicle's owner, filed his counter, contending that the offending vehicle was insured with the third respondent and that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident. 7. The third respondent, the insurer, filed its counter, contending that though the first respondent did not have a valid driving licence, the claim petition was filed for compensation. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.2. 9. Appraising the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.2. 9. Appraising the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. The insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident and awarded compensation at Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of petition till realization. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/ third respondent contending that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.75,000/- for three grievous injuries, having already granted Rs.2,04,000/- for the disability; it is nothing but duplication. The Tribunal erred in deducting the income of the injured 1/3rd without reliable evidence. The Tribunal failed to observe that the offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving license; he was charged under Section 3, read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, in the absence of a driving licence, the offending vehicle's owner is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 11. Learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 in the appeal, has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 12. Considering the material evidence on record and the upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel, the following points arise for consideration are, I. Whether the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability on the third respondent? II. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT No. I: a. The third respondent did not dispute the findings of the Tribunal regarding the manner of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant. However, to the extent of its liability though, the offending vehicle's driver violated the policy's terms and conditions, and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is disputed. Hence, the Tribunal's conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver warrants the interference of this Court. b. The main contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent is that the offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In support of its contention, R.W.1-J.Vijay Kumar got examined, and Ex.B.1- insurance policy was marked through his evidence. As already observed, the existence of the insurance policy is not disputed. In support of its contention, R.W.1-J.Vijay Kumar got examined, and Ex.B.1- insurance policy was marked through his evidence. As already observed, the existence of the insurance policy is not disputed. c. The learned counsel for the third respondent also relied on Ex.B.2-charge sheet to show that the offending vehicle’s driver had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The same charge sheet is relied on by the claimant as Ex.A.3. Except relied on the contents of the charge sheet; the third respondent has not placed any material before the Court to show that the offending vehicle’s driver had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. d. In Jayaprakash Agarwal and others v. Mohd.Kaleemulla and another, 2011(5) ALT 184, this Court held that the burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the policy. As already noted, the third respondent did not adduce any evidence except relying on the contents of the charge sheet to prove its contentions. From the reading of the said decision, the third respondent must issue notice to the owner of the offending vehicle calling upon him to produce the driving licence particulars of the offending vehicle's driver. However, the third respondent did not file any such notice or acknowledgement in proof of service of such notice. In the absence of such notice, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the third respondent failed to discharge the mandatory obligation of issuing notice to the insured, calling upon him to produce the driver's licence of the offending vehicle's driver. In the light of the observations made in the said decision, this Court views that the insurance company failed to establish that the first respondent did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that the insured-second respondent had knowledge that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. However, he handed over the offending vehicle to the driver for driving. The Investigating Officer observed that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. No evidence is placed by the respondents to show that the charge sheet's contents are incorrect. However, he handed over the offending vehicle to the driver for driving. The Investigating Officer observed that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. No evidence is placed by the respondents to show that the charge sheet's contents are incorrect. e. 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". f. In Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.) the Apex Court observed as follows: "It was necessary to bear in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied". g. There needs to be something on record to suggest that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle without conducting a proper investigation. Consequently, it is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. h. There is nothing on record to suggest that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle without conducting a proper investigation, and also, it is difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case against the driver of the offending vehicle. 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 by 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. As such, it is by 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 arriving at a conclusion regarding rashness and negligence, as well as the accident's mode and manner of occurrence. i. In D.Krishnaveni and others v. Mohammad Sikander and another, 2009 (6) ALT 620 , this Court held that, “…it is not possible for the insurance company to take shelter, under Ex.A.5 certified copy of the charge sheet filed by the claimants, which merely indicates that the driver of the offending vehicle was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for driving the vehicle without possessing any driving licence.” f. There is no record to show what happened in the criminal Court based on the charge sheet filed by the police; based on the allegations made by the police in the charge sheet, no finding can be given unless the same is proved by admissible evidence. It is not safe to accept the allegations in the charge sheet without any corroborative evidence. In this case, the allegations made in the charge sheet against the first respondent pertain to an offence of driving the vehicle without a valid driving licence. Such an allegation is accepted without any corroborative evidence, which amounts to proving the offence based on the contents of the charge sheet without any evidence. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention raised by the third respondent on the contents of the charge sheet that the driver had no valid driving licence. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT No. II a. The claimant was 25 years old at the time of the accident. To prove the injuries, the claimant examined Dr Y. Yogendra Babu as P.W. 2, who issued a wound certificate (Ex.A.2). P.W.2 testified during the evidence that P.W.1 suffered a compound fracture of the right leg in the middle 1/3rd with an open wound measuring 6 cm x 4 cm. The claimant also examined Dr. A.V.R. Mohan as P.W.3 to prove the disability sustained by him. Based on the evidence adduced by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for each grievous injury. The claimant also examined Dr. A.V.R. Mohan as P.W.3 to prove the disability sustained by him. Based on the evidence adduced by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for each grievous injury. Computing the loss of earnings because of the disability is concerned, the Tribunal, relying on the evidence of P.W.3, considered that the claimant sustained the disability at 50%, assessed the monthly earnings at Rs.3,000/- and deducted one-third of his income towards personal and living expenses, and applied the multiplier "17" which is provided for the persons aged between 26 and 30 years in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 and thereby assessed the loss of earnings at Rs.2,04,000/-. In a claim petition filed for compensation towards the injuries sustained in the accident, the personal and living expenses of the injured should not have been supposed to deduct. Based on the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, this Court feels that the injuries do not impede the day-to-day work, and this Court is inclined to consider the disability at 40%, and, thereby, the loss of earnings under the head of permanent disability works out Rs.2,44,800/- (36,000 x 17 x 40%). The Tribunal granted total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Even excluding Rs.75,000/- compensation awarded for the pain and suffering of the grievous injuries, the claimant would be entitled to the compensation amount claimed in the petition. As seen from the order of the Tribunal, it has not awarded the amounts under other conventional heads. Since the claimant has not disputed the quantum of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, and the third respondent has failed to establish that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is not just and reasonable, this Court views that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount of Rs.2,50,000/-. b. In view of the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal, and the appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. As a result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.