JUDGMENT : Heard the arguments of Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company through virtual mode. Also heard Sri Bora Naganjaneyulu, learned counsel representing Sri K.Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. 2. This appeal directed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company challenging the Order and Decree dated 12.04.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.397 of 2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The claimants filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one M.Bhaskar (hereinafter referred to ‘deceased’) in a motor accident occurred on 01.11.2004 involving the jeep bearing registration No.AP04 U 4138. 5. The case of the claimants is that on 01.11.2004 the deceased was driving a jeep bearing registration No.AP07 W 3395 and when the jeep reached a place near R.S.Garments Factory near Mangalam; the deceased stopped the jeep by the side of the road and got down to attend the nature call; then another jeep bearing registration No.AP04 U 4138 (hereinafter referred to ‘offending vehicle’) came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased; as a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot; police registered a case, investigated the accident and laid police report (charge sheet) against the driver of the offending vehicle opining that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; the claimants are the dependants of the deceased; claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. 7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the vehicle bearing registration No.AP04 U 4138 i.e., offending vehicle not involved in the accident on 01.11.2004; the deceased might have died in some other accident; the claimants filed the petition implicating the offending vehicle for wrongful gain; police made only paper investigation. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the deceased one Bhaskar @ Bachi died due to injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 01.11.2004 prior to 11.00 PM on Tirupati- Karakamabadi road near R.S. Garments due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep bearing registration No.AP04 U 4238 of the 1st respondent and the said Jeep was duly insured with the 2nd respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 9. During enquiry, on behalf of claimants, the 1st claimant was examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked six document as Ex.A1 to Ex.A6, respectively. Sri D.Gangi Naidu was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, its Assistant Manager viz., K.Sreedhar was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were filed. 10. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence, on issue No.1 held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the injuries. The learned Tribunal on issue No.2 held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.5,71,000/- towards just compensation and passed the decree against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle making them jointly and severally liable for compensation amount. 11. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed the appeal challenging on the ground that the finding of the learned Tribunal that offending vehicle involved in the impugned accident, is erroneous. 12. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants examined P.W.2 as an eyewitness to the accident, but there is no evidence forthcoming establishing that P.W.2 is an eyewitness, and further his name was not referred to in the police report (charge sheet) filed by the police. 13. 12. Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company would submit that the claimants examined P.W.2 as an eyewitness to the accident, but there is no evidence forthcoming establishing that P.W.2 is an eyewitness, and further his name was not referred to in the police report (charge sheet) filed by the police. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants would submit that merely because P.W.2’s name was not mentioned in the police report (charge sheet), there are no grounds to disbelieve his testimony about the manner in which the accident was occurred, as nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to jettison his testimony before the Tribunal; and further, the police report (charge sheet) also would disclose that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in the case; and there is no contra evidence placed on record to discard it; and in that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 14. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in M.V.O.P. No.397 of 2008 vide Order and Decree dated 12.04.2012 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 15. POINT NO.1: It is a settled proposition of law that in an application filed under Section 166 of the Act, proof required to establish the act of rash or negligence be tested on the touchstone preponderance of probabilities only, but not on the principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as required in a criminal case. This view is fortified in the Judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in: 1. Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, 2013 (10) SCC 946; 2. Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 ; 3. United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shila Datta, 2011 (10) SCC 509 ; 4. Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and another, AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 ; 16. Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, 2013 (10) SCC 946; 2. Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 (13) SCC 530 ; 3. United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shila Datta, 2011 (10) SCC 509 ; 4. Mathew Alexander vs. Mohammed Shafi and another, AIR 2023 (SC) 3349 ; 16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above ref Judgments held that the Tribunal has to take a holistic view of evidence and direct proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle need not be established by the claimants, and the claimants have to establish their case on touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the standard proof of beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in road traffic accident. 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court further in N.K.V.Bros (P) Limited vs. M.Karumai Ammal, 1980 (3) SCC 457 . and Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, 2018 (5) SCC 656 and also in the recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mathew Alexander case (supra) held as under: “It is clear that the approach in examining the evidence in as criminal case is not at all to find fault that the nonexamination of the eye witness in the case, but to analyse the evidence already on record to ascertain that is sufficient to answer the matter in issue and the touchstone of preponderance of probability, and further, non-examination of witness per se cannot be treated as fatal to the claim set up before the Tribunal and in other words, the approach should be holistic analysis of the entire pleadings and evidence by applying the principles of preponderance of probability and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in road traffic accidents.” 18. It is pertinent to note down that in N.K.V.Bros (P) Limited case (supra), it was contended by the owner that “criminal case in relating to the accident had ended in acquittal, and for which reason the claim under Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected’. It is pertinent to note down that in N.K.V.Bros (P) Limited case (supra), it was contended by the owner that “criminal case in relating to the accident had ended in acquittal, and for which reason the claim under Motor Vehicles Act ought to be rejected’. The Hon’ble Apex Court negatived the said argument by observing as under: “The nature of proof required to establish culpable rashness, punishable under the Indian Penal Code, is more stringent than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability.” 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court at para No.3 of the said Judgment observed as under: “Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasizing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it tanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the driver in the manner of careful driving. The heavy economic impact culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their neighbour. Indeed, the State must seriously consider no fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the Tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Article 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for State relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of Tribunals and High Courts should insist upon quick disposal so that the many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.” 20. There is no justification for niggardliness in enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of Tribunals and High Courts should insist upon quick disposal so that the many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.” 20. In the light of above dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various Judgments, the Tribunals must take care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. The culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is reasonable and the Tribunal should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Tribunal shall take a holistic view of evidence placed before it. The Tribunal, while appreciating the evidence shall not forget the rule that the claimants to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities only. Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. 21. In the case on hand, the claimants, in order to discharge their burden, examined D.Gangi Naidu (P.W.2) as an eyewitness to the occurrence of the accident. In the chief-examination affidavit, P.W.2 on oath stated that on 01.11.2004 he was on duty as security guard in R.S.Garments Factory and he was on duty from 10.30 AM to 11.00 PM on that day and while attending duty, he noticed the impugned accident in the case and in the said accident, the offending vehicle dashed the deceased and as a result, the deceased died on the spot. 22. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company crossexamined the witness at length. All the questions put in the cross-examination are in the form of suggestions denying his statement made on oath. No positive material was elicited impeach his statement in chief. It is a settled principle of law that suggestions put in the crossexamination, without any supporting material will carry the Court nowhere. 23. The claimants filed a copy of police report (charge sheet) laid by the police, opining that the offending vehicle involved in the accident and that the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident and died due to the said injuries. 24. 23. The claimants filed a copy of police report (charge sheet) laid by the police, opining that the offending vehicle involved in the accident and that the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident and died due to the said injuries. 24. The plea of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company in the counter is that police conducted paper investigation. No evidence is placed before the Tribunal to probable that police did not conduct any investigation. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company did challenge the report of police (charge sheet) before any other Forum. Therefore, in the absence of any contra evidence, the evidence available on record would probable the case of the claimants that the offending vehicle was involved in impugned the accident, the deceased sustained injuries, and died due to the said injuries. 25. Further, the evidence on record would establish that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The driver of the offending vehicle was not examined before the Tribunal to contradict the evidence produced by the claimants. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident and that, accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 26. POINT NO. 2: In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2559 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Dismissed’. 27. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is ‘Dismissed’ by confirming the Order and Decree dated 12.04.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati in M.V.O.P.No.397 of 2008. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.