JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the Order dated 22.06.2015 in MVOP.No.55 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – I Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (for short ‘the Tribunal’, the appellant who arrayed as 2nd Respondent in MVOP.No.55 of 2014 filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the award. 2. For convenience's sake, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in MVOP.No.55 of 2014. 3. The claimants filed a petition under section 166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-on account of the death of Sayala Prasad (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the deceased') in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.05.2013. 4. The claimant's case is that on 18.05.2013 at about noon, while the deceased was selling guava fruits at the Toll Plaza, Kalaparru, at that time, one A.P.S.R.T.C bus bearing No.AP37-Z-0061 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the offending bus'), being driven by its driver, i.e., 1st Respondent, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and even without blowing any horn or following the traffic rules, coming from Vijayawada and going towards Eluru, suddenly came and dashed against the deceased, who stood by the side of the road along with others who were attending their works, as a result of which, the deceased sustained severe and multiple bleeding injuries all over the body and immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Eluru for treatment and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. 5. The claimants' other case is that the deceased was an agricultural coolie and doing fruit selling business, thereby earning an amount of Rs.9,000/-per month. 6. The 1st Respondent, the driver of the offending bus, remained ex-parte. 7. The 2nd Respondent filed a written statement, denied the age, income, occupation of the deceased and the manner of the accident as stated in the claim petition, and contended that the accident occurred due to negligent standing of the deceased by the side of the road; the deceased himself is responsible for the accident. The compensation claimed is excessive. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the relevant issues. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary was adduced. 9. The compensation claimed is excessive. 8. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the relevant issues. On behalf of claimants, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary was adduced. 9. After considering the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, the Tribunal has found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver, i.e., 1st Respondent, and granted compensation of Rs.7,92,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum against the respondents 1 and 2, making them jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and respondents and perused the record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding abnormal compensation of Rs.7,92,000/-as against the claim of the claimants of Rs.8,00,000/-; the Tribunal ought to have seen that the deceased was standing by the side of the road and received injuries and the offending bus driver has got nothing to do with the incident; and ought to have taken into consideration of the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also; The Tribunal committed a serious irregularity in considering the evidence of PW.2 who is not an eye witness. The Tribunal erred in calculating the income of the deceased, awarding Rs.1,00,000/-towards consortium, Rs.10,000/-towards loss of love and affection and awarding interest @ 7.5% p.a. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the learned Tribunal. 13. Now the points for determination are: 1. Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the offending bus driver or negligence of the deceased contributed to the accident? 2. Whether the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT NO.1 : 14. The relationship among the claimants is not disputed. The 1st petitioner is the wife, the 2nd petitioner is the daughter, the 3rd petitioner is the son, 4th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The 1st Respondent is the driver; the 2nd Respondent is the owner of the offending bus. The 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1. She testified about the manner of the accident; admittedly, she was not an eyewitness to the accident. The 1st Respondent is the driver; the 2nd Respondent is the owner of the offending bus. The 1st petitioner was examined as PW.1. She testified about the manner of the accident; admittedly, she was not an eyewitness to the accident. To prove the deceased's death, the claimants relied on Ex.A1-attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A3-attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A4-attested copy of postmortem certificate and Ex.A5-attested copy of charge sheet. The claimants also examined PW.2 – Mullapudi Ruben, who claims to be an eyewitness, to prove the manner of the accident. PW.2's evidence shows that on 18.05.2013 at about noon, while the deceased was selling guava fruits at the Toll Plaza, Kalaparru, at that time, the offending bus being driven by its driver, i.e., 1st Respondent in a rash and negligent manner, with hectic speed, without following the traffic rules, without blowing the horn, coming from Vijayawada and going towards Eluru, suddenly came and dashed against the deceased, who stood by the side of the road along with others who were attending their works. As a result, the deceased sustained severe and multiple bleeding injuries all over the body. He was immediately shifted o Government Hospital, Eluru, for treatment and, while undergoing treatment, succumbed to injuries. Though PW.2 was cross-examined, nothing was elicited to discredit his evidence. 15. As seen from the record, the death of the deceased due to injuries sustained in the accident is not in dispute. It is also evident from Ex.A1-attested copy of F.I.R, Ex.A3-attested copy of inquest report, Ex.A4-attested copy of postmortem certificate and Ex.A5-attested copy of charge sheet. Ex.A1 – F.I.R shows that Shaik Altaf Basha, one of the injured along with the deceased, gave a report about the accident, and the police registered a case against the offending bus driver. 16. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the accident occurred on 18.05.2011 at noon, and the information was received at the police station on the same day at 03.00 pm. There is a specific recital in Ex.A1 attributing that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the offending bus driver, i.e., 1st Respondent. 17. The respondent-R.T.C has not examined any witnesses to prove the manner of the accident as contended by it. Despite service of notice, the 1st Respondent had not chosen to contest the claim petition. There is a specific recital in Ex.A1 attributing that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the offending bus driver, i.e., 1st Respondent. 17. The respondent-R.T.C has not examined any witnesses to prove the manner of the accident as contended by it. Despite service of notice, the 1st Respondent had not chosen to contest the claim petition. As already observed in the claim petition, it is averred that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st Respondent. Despite making such allegations against the 1st Respondent, he has not come forward by filing the counter explaining the manner of the accident. 18. The evidence of PW.2 withstood the test of cross-examination, and the respondents could not shake his evidence. There was no doubt to cast on the veracity of the witness. 19. As seen from the record, the claimant also relied on an Ex.A4-Attested certified copy of the charge sheet. Respondents place no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. 20. A perusal of the contents of the Ex.A4-charge sheet shows that police found fault with the offending bus driver. As per Ex.A4, the 1st Respondent negligently drove the offending bus and caused the accident. 21. The normal rule is for the claimants 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 respondents to establish the accident was due to some other cause than his negligence. 22. Respondents place no evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In the case of K.Rajani and others, V. M. SatyanarayanaGoud and others, 2015 ACJ 797 , the Hon’ble High Court is pleased to observe 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”. 23. 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”. 23. In the case of Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.), the Hon’ble 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”. 24. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed a charge sheet against the offending bus driver without conducting a proper investigation. It is also difficult to hold that the Police Officer fabricated a case against the 1st Respondent. 25. 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. The preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for concluding rashness and negligence, as well as the mode and manner of happening. 26. The reading of the documents placed before the Tribunal clearly shows that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus driver. When it contends that the accident happened due to negligence of the deceased, it is to place necessary evidence before the Tribunal based on which the Tribunal is expected to give its conclusion. The Tribunal has accepted the claimants' case regarding the manner of the accident and also accepted the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet making the offending bus driver 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 the manner of the accident and also accepted the observations made by the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet making the offending bus driver 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. No material was placed by the appellants to show that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence, as contended. The 1st Respondent is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident. Though he is hesitant to contest the matter, the 2nd respondent-R.T.C should have taken steps to examine the 1st Respondent to establish its contest. But such measures were not taken. The contention raised by the Respondent regarding the contributory negligence of the deceased is not established by placing either documentary or oral evidence. 27. Upon careful reading of the material on record, this Court views that the Tribunal has perfectly appreciated the evidence on record and findings of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the offending bus driver holds good. POINT No.2 : 28. Based on the Ex.A2-Postmortem report, the Tribunal has given a finding regarding the age of the deceased as 42 years. The other side does not dispute the Tribunal's said finding. 29. The Tribunal assessed the monthly earnings of the deceased at Rs.4,500/-per month. The said finding of the Tribunal cannot be found fault with, as the evidence on record shows that the deceased used to work as an agricultural coolie. 30. The multiplier applicable for the age group of 41-45 years is ‘14’ as per Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 . 31. It is strongly contended on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal is not supposed to have awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-towards loss of consortium and Rs.1,00,000/-towards love and affection and Rs.25,000/-towards funeral expenses. 32. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 , at paragraph 8, the Apex Court held that: "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation, irrespective of whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the claimant. 32. In Magma General Ins. Co. Ltd., v. Nanu Ram, 2018 ACJ 2782 , at paragraph 8, the Apex Court held that: "(8.6)…the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award 'just compensation, irrespective of whether any plea on that behalf was raised by the claimant. (8.7) A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (S.C.), dealt with the various heads under which compensation will be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is the loss of consortium. In legal parlance, 'consortium' is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', parental consortium', and filial consortium. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. Concerning a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse (Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh 2013 ACJ 1403 (S.C.). The parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of 'parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training. The filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensate in the case of the accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship, and role in the family unit." 33. The judgment in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 270, the case was rendered in the year 2017. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a 10% enhancement of conventional heads. By following the above observations in the decisions cited supra, this Court views that the petitioners 1 to 3 are entitled to compensation of Rs.44,000/-towards consortium and the 4th petitioner is entitled to a parental consortium of Rs.20,000/-and they are entitled to Rs.16,500/-towards funeral expenses and Rs.16,500/-towards loss of estate, i.e., Rs.1,85,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,25,000/-and that the Tribunal awarded an excess amount of Rs.45,000/-under conventional heads. 34. As seen from the Order of the Tribunal, it has not awarded a future prospectus and fixed a compensation amount of Rs.5,67,000/-towards loss of dependency. 35. 34. As seen from the Order of the Tribunal, it has not awarded a future prospectus and fixed a compensation amount of Rs.5,67,000/-towards loss of dependency. 35. In the case of awarding future prospectus as per the guidelines of Pranay Sethi, the claimants could have got more compensation than the Tribunal awarded. Hence, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has awarded more compensation unreasonably. 36. The claimants, having been satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, seems that they have not preferred any appeal questioning the quantum of compensation. Since the claimants have not placed clinching material before the Court to show the actual earnings of the deceased and the compensation had been fixed by the Tribunal only based on guesswork, this Court views that at any stretch of the imagination, it cannot be held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. 37. Given the discussion above, I do not find any substance in the appeal to interfere with the impugned Order in the present appeal. 38. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merits and is, as a result, dismissed without costs, and the Order passed by the Tribunal dated 22.06.2015 in MVOP.No.55 of 2014 is hereby confirmed. 39. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.