JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.419 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam questioning the order of the Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) the 3rd respondent United India Insurance Company Limited represented by its Divisional Manager has preferred this appeal questioning the order passed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the insurance company to pay the awarded compensation. 2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. 3. The case of the claimant is that he had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Sagubandi Udaya Bhaskara Rao (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased') in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.12.2008. 4. Petitioners 1 and 2 are parents of the deceased, 3rd petitioner is the unmarried sister of the deceased. The deceased is aged about 24 years and was working in the Army as a sapper in Task Force and getting a salary of Rs.15,095/- per month, and he is unmarried. 5. The claimant's case is that on 21.12.2008, the deceased was proceeding on his Bajaj Platina Motorcycle bearing No.AP30H/3433 at about 03.30 PM, when he reached Subhadrapuram junction, the 1st respondent drove the bus bearing No.AP.30T/6996 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'offending vehicle') rashly and negligently without blowing the horn and suddenly turned the vehicle, due to which, the back side footboard of crime vehicle hit the motorcycle of the deceased. He fell from the motorcycle, received injuries, and died on the spot. 6. The 1st respondent is the driver, and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle, and they remained exparte. 7. The 3rd respondent/insurance company filed its written statement that the petitioners have to prove that the 1st respondent has a valid driving license and the vehicle is validly insured with the 3rd respondent and has to prove the age, income and avocation of the deceased. The claim is very excessive. The 1st respondent does not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent willfully violated the conditions, and therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable for indemnification on behalf of the owner. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. The claim is very excessive. The 1st respondent does not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. The 2nd respondent willfully violated the conditions, and therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable for indemnification on behalf of the owner. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim on behalf of the claimant during the trial, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A8. On behalf of the 3rd respondent, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Ex.B1 and Exs.X1 and X2. 9. After appreciation of 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 deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- with Interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization against the 3rd respondent. 10. In the grounds of appeal, learned counsel for the appellant/3rd respondent/insurance company contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that Ex.X1 Driving License Extract and the same was issued to Mr Bone Shankr Rao and not to the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., Bone Apparao. The driving license produced before the Police and to the Court is fake and fabricated. Despite proving the same, the Tribunal, without considering the same, erroneously fastened the liability solely because the claimants are third parties and are entitled to compensation. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that RW.2 deposed before the Court that the DL.No.DLRAP035102 842000, dated 21.06.2008, was issued to one B.Shankar Rao and not to the offending vehicle's driver, i.e., B.Apparao. The offending vehicle's driver did not have any license. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that RW.2 was summoned and he admitted that Bone Shankar Rao died eight years back. Therefore, the license produced pertains to Bone Shankar Rao and not to Bone Apparao, and it is a fake. The offending vehicle's driver has no valid driving license, so the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal ultimately erred in not considering the negligence of the deceased. The deceased drove his motorcycle rashly and negligently at high speed and with two pillion riders. Because of high speed and triple riding, he could not control his motorcycle, dashed to the bus footboard from behind and contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunal ultimately erred in not considering the negligence of the deceased. The deceased drove his motorcycle rashly and negligently at high speed and with two pillion riders. Because of high speed and triple riding, he could not control his motorcycle, dashed to the bus footboard from behind and contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and fastened the liability on the insurance company only. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. 12. I have heard both sides and carefully considered the material available on record. 13. Now the points for consideration are, I. Is the Tribunal justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver? II. Is the Tribunal justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company? III. Is the Interest awarded by the Tribunal high and unreasonable? POINT NO.I : 14. The evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident is not disputed. To prove the deceased's death due to the injuries, the claimants relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A.2- certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A.4-certified copy of postmortem report and Ex.A.5-certified copy of inquest report. These documents clearly show that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2-D.Sampath Kumar, to prove negligence and rashness on the part of the offending vehicle's driver. 15. P.W.2 deposed that the 1st respondent drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and suddenly took a turn at that time. As a result, the footboard dashed against the deceased's motorcycle. 16. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.2-Bone Apparao and RW.3 – G.Syam Sundara Rao got examined to disprove the case as pleaded in the claim petition regarding the manner of the accident. Admittedly, RW.3 is not an eyewitness to the accident. RW.2 testified that he received a summons to produce a driving license. According to his evidence, the motorcycle dashed against the back side of the bus at the turning. The accident took place due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcyclist, but not due to his negligence. It is not his evidence that he informed the Police about the manner of the accident. According to his evidence, the motorcycle dashed against the back side of the bus at the turning. The accident took place due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcyclist, but not due to his negligence. It is not his evidence that he informed the Police about the manner of the accident. He did not choose to contest the matter, and he remained ex parte. As seen from the averments in the claim petition, specific and clear allegations have been made against the driving of 1st respondent. If there is a truth in the version of the 1st respondent, he would not have hesitated to contest the matter by filing the counter. Having not filed the counter disputing the manner of the accident as contended in the petition, it is not open to the 1st respondent to dispute the manner of the accident as claimed. In the absence of pleadings, this Court finds that much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of the 1st respondent as he is a party to the claim petition. 17. Though P.W.2 was cross-examined at length, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. Ex.A.2- charge sheet would reveal that after a proper investigation into the case, the subinspector of the Police filed the charge sheet against the offending vehicle's driver. 18. It is not the case of the third respondent that its staff or officials have witnessed the accident in question. The claimants examined the eye witness as P.W.2 to prove the accident in question and relied on Ex.A.1-certified copy of the F.I.R. and Ex.A.2-certified copy of the charge sheet. The respondents placed no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet were incorrect. In K. Rajani and 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 incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false." 19. If at all the findings of the Police are found to be incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false." 19. In the case of Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.), 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 touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied”. 20. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the offending vehicle's driver without conducting a proper investigation. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case. 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 regarding the accident. 21. The Tribunal has accepted the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet making the offending vehicle’s driver responsible for the accident. The charge sheet contents also support the claimants' case regarding the manner of the accident. Reading the documents placed before the Tribunal, there is clear evidence that the accident happened because of the negligence of the offending vehicle’s driver. 22. A standard rule is for the claimants to prove 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 respondents who caused it. It will then be for the respondents to establish the accident was due to some other cause than their negligence. 23. Though the 1st respondent has not contested the matter by filing the counter explaining the manner of the accident, he attributed to the deceased that he was responsible for the accident. It will then be for the respondents to establish the accident was due to some other cause than their negligence. 23. Though the 1st respondent has not contested the matter by filing the counter explaining the manner of the accident, he attributed to the deceased that he was responsible for the accident. 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 at the counter by the insurance company will remain not substantiated by acceptable, relevant, and legal evidence. There must be cogent evidence to prove contributory negligence. In this case, there is no proof that the accident was caused by the motorcycle rider being careless and driving too fast. In the absence of convincing evidence to prove the plea of contributory negligence, common law doctrine cannot be applied in the present case. There are no details of contributory negligence in the counter filed by the insurance company, and no evidence is also put forth except for the allegation of a stray sentence. How the accident happened leaves no doubt that the offending vehicle's driver was solely negligent in causing the said accident. While granting relief under the Act, the courts should not be bound by mere technicalities. Still, they should adopt a liberal approach by giving the law a more comprehensive construction and meaning that would favour the victims. 24. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence, as well as the accident mode and manner of occurrence. Hence, this Court views that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver. Accordingly, the point is answered. Point No.II: 25. The main contention of the insurer is that the offending vehicle's driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Hence, the insurer is not responsible for indemnifying the claimant. 26. To establish the contention, the respondent/insurance company examined RW.1 – T. Rambabu, Senior Assistant in R.T.O. Office. He produced Ex.X1 DL Extract of B.Sankara Rao, S/o. Pyditalli. The Tribunal has referred the evidence of RW.1 concerning the documents Ex.X2 and Ex.A3 certificate copy of the MVI Report. Hence, the insurer is not responsible for indemnifying the claimant. 26. To establish the contention, the respondent/insurance company examined RW.1 – T. Rambabu, Senior Assistant in R.T.O. Office. He produced Ex.X1 DL Extract of B.Sankara Rao, S/o. Pyditalli. The Tribunal has referred the evidence of RW.1 concerning the documents Ex.X2 and Ex.A3 certificate copy of the MVI Report. The evidence of RW.1 coupled with the MVI report shows that the driving license particulars of one Bone Sankara Rao, S/o. Pyditalli is given. Admittedly, the 1st respondent, in this case, is Bone Apparao, S/o.Pyditalli. The evidence of RW.2 – B.Appa Rao, 1st respondent, shows that Boni Sankara Rao is his cousin. Ex.X1 driving license stands in the name of B.Sankara Rao. Ex.X2 driving licence was issued on 19.05.1984 and valid up to 20.06.2011 of HPV and L.M.V. Transport License. As per the evidence of RW.2, Bone Sankara Rao is his stepmother's son, who died about eight years back. Based on the evidence, the insurance company contends that the Ex.X2 driving license produced by RW.1 is fake. It has not produced any material before the Court to show that the Ex.X1 licence stands in the name of Boni Sankara Rao and is genuine. This Court views that it is not difficult for the insurance company to place all relevant registers in support of its contention that the Ex.X2 licence stands in the name of the 1st respondent as a fake one. Simply because the Ex.X1 license and Ex.X2 license stand in the names of different persons, though they contain the same registration number and driving licence number and types of driving licences are also the same, it cannot be said Ex.X2 license is a fake one in absence of any production of documentary evidence maintained by the insurance company. At least the insurance company should have explained why Ex.X1 licence stands in the name of Boni Sankara Rao and cannot be considered fake. Even otherwise, it is assumed that Ex. X2's driving license is fake; this Court finds that pay and recovery can be ordered against the insurance company. 27. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. At least the insurance company should have explained why Ex.X1 licence stands in the name of Boni Sankara Rao and cannot be considered fake. Even otherwise, it is assumed that Ex. X2's driving license is fake; this Court finds that pay and recovery can be ordered against the insurance company. 27. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lehru and others, 2003 S.A.R. (Civil) 386 Supreme Court, wherein the Apex Court held that: “Even in the absence of licence which fake or invalid licence or disqualification of the driver for driving, are not in themselves defences available to the insurance company, the insurance company is liable to satisfy the award in favour of the 3rd party at the first instance and then to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle even where the insurance company could establish breach of terms of policy on the part of the owner of the vehicle”. 28. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Geeta Bhat and others, 2008 ACJ 1498 , In paragraphs 13 and 15, the Apex Court held as under: “13. We would, therefore, assume that the licence possessed by the 6th respondent, Gopal Singh was fake. Only because the same was fake, the same, having regard to the settled legal position, as noticed hereinbefore, would not absolve the insurer to reimburse the owner of a vehicle in respect of the amount awarded in favour of a third party by the Tribunal in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 14…. 15. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Interest of justice shall be subserved if the Appellant is directed to pay the awarded amount in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 5 with liberty to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the vehicle." 29. In United India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Ruby Devi and others, 2023 S.C.C. Online Del 682, a single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, following the principles laid down by the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , held at paragraph No.19 as under: "19. In United India Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Ruby Devi and others, 2023 S.C.C. Online Del 682, a single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, following the principles laid down by the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , held at paragraph No.19 as under: "19. This practice holds good even in cases where there has been a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the insured, wherein the insurance company first satisfies the claimants and then gains recovery right against the insured. This becomes evident from the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, reported as (2004) 3 SCC 297 . The relevant paragraph is being reproduced hereunder: "110.(iii) The breach of policy condition, e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not defences available to the insurer against the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding the use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified from driving at the relevant time. xxxx (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove a breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the case of the accident. The Tribunals, in interpreting the policy conditions, would apply "the Rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. The Tribunals, in interpreting the policy conditions, would apply "the Rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. xxxx (x) Where on the adjudication of the claim under the Act, the Tribunal concludes that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable, and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act, the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5), which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured, can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular Court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims." 30. In Swaran Singh’s case, the Apex Court also held in paragraph 92 that: “WHERE THE DRIVER'S LICENCE IS FOUND TO BE FAKE: 92. It may be true, as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner, that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence. Still, the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. It may be true, as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner, that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence. Still, the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru's case (supra), the matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench, but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms of which the insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for its disentitlement from raising any defence or the owners be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We will deal in some details with this aspect of the matter later." 31. In a case between Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, Civil Appeal No.8144 of 2018 (arising out of S.L.P. (C). No.26955 of 2017), the facts of the case are that the jeep driver had no valid driving license at the time of the accident and there was a violation of the terms of the insurance policy; the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation to the claimants and granted liberty to the insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In such a case, the Apex Court observed in paragraphs Nos.7 and 8, 12 as follows. "7…..As per the decision in the Swaran Singh case, the onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was a breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess a valid driving licence and there is a breach of policy conditions, "pay and recover" can be ordered in case of thirdparty risks. The Tribunal is required to consider whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out whether the driving licence produced by the driver does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. 8…... The Supreme Court considered the decision of the Swaran Singh case in a subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. 8…... The Supreme Court considered the decision of the Swaran Singh case in a subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 , wherein this Court held that “the decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to cases other than third party risks and in case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured”. The same principle was reiterated in Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev and others (2008) 3 SCC 193 . xxxxx 12…….since the reference to the larger Bench in the Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently, the decision in the Swaran Singh case followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and, after that, recover the same from the vehicle owner in question in accordance with the Judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned Judgment of the High Court exonerates the insurance company from its liability. It directs the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside, and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored." 32. It is not the case of the third respondent that the offending vehicle's owner willfully allowed his driver to drive the vehicle, knowing that he had a fake licence. The Tribunal has given its reasons to conclude that the insurance company failed to establish that the licence produced by the offending vehicle's driver was fake. The material on record shows that R.W.2 has also produced Ex.X.2, driving licence extract. In light of the facts of the case, this Court views that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. 33. The material on record shows that R.W.2 has also produced Ex.X.2, driving licence extract. In light of the facts of the case, this Court views that the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the insurance company. 33. The Tribunal has given its reasons to conclude that the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation as there is no violation of policy terms and the driver himself produced an Ex.X2 driving license, and the third respondent/insurance company failed to prove that it is a fake license, since the same driving license particulars are also mentioned in Ex.A3 certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector Report. 34. For the reasons stated above, this Court views that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the evidence on record and come to a correct conclusion and rightly fixed the liability on the insurance company. Accordingly, the point is answered. POINT No.III: 35. The Appellant's counsel contends that the rate of Interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive, and it is to be scaled down. As seen from the award, the Tribunal awarded the interest rate of 9% per annum. 36. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Satinder Kaur, 2020 ACJ 2131 , the Apex Court held that the Tribunal allowed 9% p.a. from filing the claim petition. However, the High Court reduced the interest rate to 7.5% p.a. The Apex Court has observed that they deem it appropriate to direct the Interest @ 12% p.a., to be paid on the total compensation awarded. 37. By following the principles laid down by the Apex Court, this Court believes that granting the rate of Interest depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. There is no material placed before the Court showing the prevailing bank rate of Interest as of the date of the accident; as such, it cannot hold that awarding of interest rate at 9% p.a. is not just and reasonable. The Tribunal, at its discretion, granted 9 % p.a. after considering the entire material on record. In the facts of the case, this Court views that the Interest need not be scaled down, as the Tribunal has exercised its discretion appropriately. Accordingly, the point is answered. 38. Given the discussion above in the appeal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal. 39. In the facts of the case, this Court views that the Interest need not be scaled down, as the Tribunal has exercised its discretion appropriately. Accordingly, the point is answered. 38. Given the discussion above in the appeal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal. 39. Accordingly, the appeal, devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed without costs, confirming the order dt.14.12.2011 in M.V.O.P. No.419 of 2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum- I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 40. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.