JUDGMENT : Johnson John, J. The 3rd respondent insurance company and the claim petitioners in O.P.(MV) No. 1161 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kollam filed the above appeal and cross objection challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. 2. The claim petitioners are the legal heirs of the deceased Pradeep, who died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.07.2012. According to the claim petitioners, while the deceased was riding a motor bike along with his friend as pillion rider, bus driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner and exorbitant speed abruptly stopped in the middle of the road without any signal and thereby, the motor cycle ridden by the deceased rammed into the rear side of the bus and thereby, the deceased sustained severe injuries and subsequently, succumbed to his injuries while undergoing treatment in hospital on 09.07.2012. 3. Before the Tribunal, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exhibits A1 to A12 were marked from the side of the claim petitioners and from the side of the respondents, DW1 examined and Exhibits C1 and C2 were marked. 4. After trial and hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent and that the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the cross objectors/claim petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that as per Exhibit A8 final report filed by the police, no negligence is alleged against the 2nd respondent, driver of the bus and the evidence of DW1, Investigating Officer, will also show that there was no negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the bus. The learned counsel for the cross objectors invited my attention to the evidence of PW2, who was the pillion rider in the motorcycle who deposed that the offending bus has overtaken the motorcycle in over speed and abruptly stopped on the middle of the road by applying sudden brake and thereby, the motorcycle driven by the deceased rammed to the back side of the bus. 7. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW2 for recording a finding against the 2nd respondent driver of the bus. 8. 7. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW2 for recording a finding against the 2nd respondent driver of the bus. 8. In New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal and Others ( 2011(3) KHC 595 ), this Court held that as a general rule, production of the police charge sheet is prima facie sufficient evidence of negligence for the purpose of a claim under Section 116 of the Motor vehicles Act. In the said decision, it was also held that if any one of the parities do not accept such charge sheet, the burden must be on such party to adduce oral evidence and if oral evidence is adduced by any party in a case where charge sheet is filed, the Tribunals should give further opportunity to others also to adduce oral evidence and in such a case, the charge sheet will pale into insignificance and the dispute will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence. It was further held that in all other cases, such charge sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 9. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Mathew Alexander v. Muhammed Shafi ( 2023 INSC 621 ) shows that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants and that the claimants need only to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the said case, it was also held that the 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. 10. In this case, no occurrence witness is examined from the side of the insurance company. Admittedly, DW1 is not an occurrence witness. Even though PW2 was seriously cross examined, nothing material was brought out to discredit his evidence in chief examination regarding the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent, driver of the offending bus. Therefore, considering the available evidence on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, I find that the Tribunal is justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the contention of the appellant insurance company in this regard is not sustainable. 11. Therefore, considering the available evidence on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, I find that the Tribunal is justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the contention of the appellant insurance company in this regard is not sustainable. 11. Both sides are challenging the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. According to the claim petitioners, the deceased was aged 38 years at the time of the accident and earning Rs.10,000/-per month from his occupation as a mason. In the absence of any reliable evidence to prove the occupation and income, the Tribunal fixed Rs.5,000/-as the monthly income of the deceased. 12. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd. [ (2011) 13 SCC 236 ] and Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company [ (2014) 2 SCC 735 = 2014 KHC 4027] shows that even in the absence of any evidence, the monthly income of an ordinary worker has to be fixed as Rs.4,500/-in respect of the accident occurred in the year 2004 and for the subsequent years, the monthly income could be reckoned by adding Rs.500/-each per year. If the monthly income of the deceased is calculated by adopting the above principle, it will come to Rs.9,500/-as the accident occurred in the year 2014. 13. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Pranay Sethi [ (2017) 16 SCC 680 ] and Jagdish v. Mohan [ (2018) 4 SCC 571 ] shows that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals and in case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. 14. The Tribunal accepted 15 as the multiplier applicable and deducted one-fourth of the income towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased by following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [ 2010 (2) KLT 802 (SC)]. Thus, while reassessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.16,06,500/-[(8500+ 40%) x ¾ x 12 x 15] 15. Thus, while reassessing the compensation for loss of dependency as per the revised criteria, the amount would come to Rs.16,06,500/-[(8500+ 40%) x ¾ x 12 x 15] 15. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra) would show that the reasonable amount payable on conventional heads namely loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/-and Rs.15,000/-respectively and that the aforesaid amount should be enhanced by 10% in every three years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rojalini Nayak & Ors v. Ajit Sahoo (2024 KHC Online 8300) by adopting the above metric awarded a compensation of Rs.48,400/-towards loss of consortium and Rs.18,150/-each towards funeral expenses and loss of estate. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards funeral expenses and loss of estate will be modified to Rs.18,150/-each and the petitioners will also be entitled for Rs.48,400/-towards loss of consortium. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shriram General Ins.Co.Ltd. v. Bhagat Singh Rawat (2023 KHC Online 7244) shows that the compensation under the heads of loss of love and affection and loss of consortium cannot be granted to each legal representative of the deceased and in view of the said position, the petitioners are not entitled for a separate amount towards loss of love and affection. 16. In conclusion, the enhanced amount of compensation, as modified as a result of the above discussion is encapsulated, in a tabular format herein below: Sl.No Particulars Compensation awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Final Amount Payable 1 Loss of dependency 6,75,000/- 16,06,500/- 2 Loss of estate 15,000/- 18,150/- 3 Funeral expenses 15,000/- 18,150/- 4 Loss of consortium 30,000/- 48,400/- 5 Love and affection 20,000/- NIL 6 Transport to hospital 2500 2500/- 7 Damage to clothing 1000 1000/- 8 Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 20,000/- 9 Total amount Payable 7,78,500/- 17,14,700/- 17. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation payable to the claim petitioners is determined as Rs. 17,14,700/-. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the Cross Objection is allowed as follows: The cross objectors/claim petitioners are allowed to recover the compensation amount of Rs.17,14,700/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fourteen Thousand and Seven Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs from the respondents. The respondent insurance company shall deposit the said amount together with interest and costs before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.