JUDGMENT : 1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2010 in M.V.O.P. No.263 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, (for short ‘the tribunal’), whereby the tribunal awarded compensation Rs.5,66,000/- with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 6% per annum against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, the second respondent-APSRTC, represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, has preferred this appeal seeking set aside the order and decree passed by the tribunal. 2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The claimants have filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, for compensation Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the death of Katuri Satyanarayana in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.08.2008 on by-pass road, opposite to Jalleru B.C. colony, Jangareddigudem. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are the children and the fifth claimant is the mother of Katuri Satyanarayana. He will be referred to as “the deceased”. 4. The claimants’ case is that on 11.08.2008, after admitting the deceased’s elder sister Chittiboina Dhanalakshmi in an eye hospital at Jangareddigudem, while the deceased and his friend Koyyala Naga Mohanarao were returning to their village Appalarajugudem on their motor cycles, and when the deceased reached Jalleru B.C. colony, at about 10.30 P.M., one APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP 28 Z 519 belongs to the second respondent, driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycle of the deceased, and as a result the deceased sustained injuries over the vital parts, thereby he was taken to Sarita Hospital, Koyyalagudem, and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries at 2.30 A.M. on 12.08.2008. On a complaint, the police Jangareddigudem police station registered a case in Crime No.121 of 2008 under Section 304-A IPC against the first respondent. 5. The first respondent has remained ex-parte. 6. The second respondent, APSRTC, filed its written statement denying the material allegations made in the claim petition, inter-alia contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while riding his motor cycle Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 F 4911 was talking with his friend and so also not followed the traffic rules. 7. The second respondent, APSRTC, filed its written statement denying the material allegations made in the claim petition, inter-alia contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while riding his motor cycle Hero Honda Passion Plus motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 F 4911 was talking with his friend and so also not followed the traffic rules. 7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal has framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, the claimants got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.10. On behalf of the third respondent, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. 8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, while answering issues 1 and 2, with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent APSRTC, the tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first respondent but not on account of the negligence of the deceased. The tribunal, while answering issue No.3, awarded compensation Rs.5,66,000/- with interest as referred to above. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/ second respondent contends that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while riding his motor cycle while talking with his friends and unable to control the vehicle, dashed the bus, and fell on the road and the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is highly disproportionate and contrary to the provisions of law. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5/ claimants supported the findings and observation of the tribunal and requested to dismiss the appeal. 11. Now the point for determination is, I. Whether the tribunal is erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the first respondent, the driver of the RTC bus driver. II. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the tribunal is just and reasonable and it requires modification by reducing it? POINT No. I: a. To prove the accident, the first claimant was examined as P.W.1. Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the accident. The relationship of the deceased with the claimants is also not disputed. As seen from the material on record, the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the accident is not disputed and it is also evident by Ex.A.3-postmortem examination report and Ex.A.4-charge sheet. Admittedly, there was no eye witness to the accident. The relationship of the deceased with the claimants is also not disputed. As seen from the material on record, the death of the deceased due to the injuries sustained in the accident is not disputed and it is also evident by Ex.A.3-postmortem examination report and Ex.A.4-charge sheet. Though P.W.1 deposed about the manner of the accident, her evidence is not much relevant to decide the issue, as admittedly, she was not an eye witness to the accident. The claimants have mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2, who claimed to have witnessed the accident. Admittedly, P.W.2 has given a complaint, with the Jangareddigudem police station about the accident, which is registered under Ex.A.1. According to his evidence, the accident occurred due the negligence of the first respondent. b. To disprove the allegations made against the first respondent, he did not choose to contest the matter, though specific allegations made attributing that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. Though the second respondent has filed written statement disputing the manner of the accident, it has not taken steps to examine the first respondent to prove the manner of the accident and that the accident not occurred as contended by the claimants, but it was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. c. Though the learned standing counsel for the second respondent cross-examined P.W.2, nothing was elicited to discredit his testimony. It is not the second respondent’s case that its office personnel witnessed the accident. Hence, this court finds no substance in the second respondent’s contention, to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. d. No evidence is placed by the second respondent 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 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”. 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”. e. In Bheemla Devi v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC), the Apex Court observed that, “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”. f. There is nothing on record to suggest that the investigating officer filed charge sheet against the driver of APSRTC bus without conducting proper investigation and also it is difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a false case against the respondents. g. 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. h. A reading of the documents placed before tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus and when it contends that the accident occurred due to motorcyclist, it is to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal, basing on which the tribunal is expected to give its own conclusion. The tribunal has accepted the claimants’ case regarding manner of accident and also accepted the observations made by the investigating officer in the charge sheet making the driver of RTC bus 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. The tribunal has accepted the claimants’ case regarding manner of accident and also accepted the observations made by the investigating officer in the charge sheet making the driver of RTC bus 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 driving of motorcyclist as contended. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this court views that the tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and hence the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus holds good. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT No. II : a. According to the case of the claimants, the deceased owns Ac.19.96 cents of land. To establish the said fact, the claimant adduced the evidence of P.W.3, Chittiboina Dhanalakshmi, and relied on Ex.A.6, notarized copy of land passbook stands in the name of the deceased. As per Ex.A.6, the deceased owns Ac.9.96 cents of land. The tribunal observed that the deceased sold away Ac.5.00 cents of land to Sri Chittiboina Ganga rao in R.S.No.258/1 and gifted Ac.4.00 cents in R.S.No.258 to a person having surname “Chittiboina”. By making such observation, the tribunal observed that the deceased was holding Ac.9.00 cents out of Ac.19.96 cents in R.S.No.258/1 on the date of his death. The said finding is not assailed by the parties to the proceedings. b. After considering the evidence on record, the tribunal held that an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to be awarded towards supervisory charges for cultivation of the land owned by the deceased on account of loss of personal cultivation of the land by the deceased and for expenses towards supervisory charges, as the evidence on record shows that the deceased cultivating Ac.9.00 cents of the land personally. The tribunal correctly assessed the supervisory loss of Rs.12,000/- per annum. The tribunal correctly assessed the supervisory loss of Rs.12,000/- per annum. c. On the other hand, the tribunal relied on the judgment of this Court in P. Yesodamma and others v. T. Buchireddy and another, 2006 ACJ 414 , wherein it is held that even if a person works as a coolie (labour), he would atleast get Rs.100/- per day, and has come to a conclusion that the notional income of the deceased would be fixed with the notional income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month and also added Rs.12,000/- which was awarded towards supervisory loss and thereby assessed the annual earnings of the deceased at Rs.48,000/-. Considering the strength of the family members ‘6’ in number, the tribunal deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, arrived the annual earnings at Rs.36,000/- towards contribution of the family welfare, applied multiplier ‘14’ as provided by the Apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 , and thereby computed the loss of dependency at Rs.5,04,000/- (36,000/- x 14). The tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate. The tribunal awarded meager amount under conventional heads, this court views that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.42,000/- under conventional heads. The claimants have not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, and granting compensation of Rs.5,66,000/- in the facts of the case, at any stretch of imagination, cannot be said to be unreasonable and highly excessive. Accordingly, the point is answered. 12. Hence, I do not find any substance in the appeal and warrants interference of this Court and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.