JUDGMENT : Heard Sri Kotha Rama Mohan, learned counsel representing Sri Srinivasa Rao Katakamsetty, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 of 2012. Also heard Smt. D.Anusha, learned counsel representing Sri Chilukuri Narendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A. No.2718 of 2012 through virtual mode. None appeared for the respondents. 2. M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2580 and 2718 of 2012 are directed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Order and Decree dated 14.05.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009, respectively, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (hereinafter referred to “Tribunal”). 3. Since the point involved and to be appreciated and adjudicated in both appeals is one and the same, they are disposed of by this Common Judgment. 4. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 5. Both claim petitions arose on account of a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.05.2008. The sum and substance of claim petitions filed by the respective claimants in M.A.C.M.A.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009 is on 19.05.2008 one Kuruva Veeresh and Chakali Hanumanthu (hereinafter referred to as “deceased persons”) along with some other people were going to attend the work at Stone Crushing Unit belonged to one Balaram; around 1.30 PM when they reached the stone crusher point situate at Adoni-Yemmiganur road, a lorry bearing registration No.AP16 U 9827 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) driven by respondent No.1 in high speed from Adoni towards Kurnool and could not control the vehicle while turning and it turned turtle, consequently the offending vehicle fell on the pedestrians; the deceased persons who were among those pedestrians, succumbed to injuries and the other pedestrians sustained injuries; the deceased persons during their life time worked as Hamali and earned not less than Rs.3,000/- per month. 6. The 1st respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle filed counter contending that the pedestrians including the deceased persons all of a sudden made an attempt to cross the road and as a result, the deceased persons fell under the body of the offending vehicle; the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased persons but not due to the negligence of the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle. 7. 7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter contending that the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy; the offending vehicle involved in the accident is only goods carrying vehicle, but the deceased persons travelled as unauthorized passengers; the offending vehicle was not having conveyance certificate and permit at the time of accident. 8. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2009: 1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of the deceased Chakali Hanumanthu had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by the respondent No.1 on his lorry bearing No.AP16U 9827? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what the petitioners are entitled to? In M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009, the following issues are framed by the learned Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident and the resultant death of the deceased Kuruva Veeresh had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver employed by the respondent No.1 on his lorry bearing No.AP16U 9827? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what the petitioners are entitled to? 9. During enquiry, the respective wives of deceased persons were examined as P.W.1 in both claim petitions besides exhibiting five (05) documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. In respect of respondents, the Senior Assistant of the respondent No.2/Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 in both claim petitions besides exhibiting five (05) documents as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5. 10. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence placed before it on issue Nos.1 and 2 in both the claim petitions held that the deceased persons are not gratuitous passengers and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and awarded a sum of Rs. 4,30,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2009 Rs.3,82,500/- in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009 towards compensation to the respective claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and directed the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2/Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally. 11. 4,30,000/- in M.V.O.P.No.80 of 2009 Rs.3,82,500/- in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009 towards compensation to the respective claimants with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and directed the respondent No.1/driver of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2/Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally. 11. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., 2nd respondent/Insurance Company preferred the present appeals contending that both deceased persons are unauthorized passengers, travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident and therefore, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured i.e., respondent No.1. 12. Smt. D.Anusha, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company in M.V.O.P.No.83 of 2009 i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No.2718 of 2012 would contend that the Tribunal erroneously found that the deceased persons are pedestrians and it is against the material placed before the learned Tribunal. 13. 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-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, in M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009 dated 14.05.2012 warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? POINT NO.1: 14. It is an admitted fact that both the appeals are directed by the Insurance Company against the Order and Decree in M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009, dated 14.05.2012 and both the claim petitions arose on account of a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.05.2008. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased persons died in the above impugned motor vehicle accident and the claimants in both claim petitions are the dependants/legal representatives of the respective deceased persons. 15. It is also an admitted fact that the deceased persons died in the above impugned motor vehicle accident and the claimants in both claim petitions are the dependants/legal representatives of the respective deceased persons. 15. The case of the claimants in both the claim petitions is that on 19.05.2008 the deceased persons were walking by the side of road to reach their work place i.e., Stone Crushing Unit belonged to one Balaram; at about 1.30 PM when they reached the work place, the offending vehicle coming from Adoni going towards Kurnool, came in a rash and negligent manner; the driver of the lorry could not control the offending vehicle as it was going at high speed; as a result, the offending vehicle turned turtle and fell on the pedestrians including the deceased persons; both the deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and later, succumbed to death on the same day; the other pedestrians also sustained injuries. 16. The learned Tribunal considered Ex.A1 FIR as well as Ex.A4 Final Report laid by the police after investigating the case. The copy of Final Report placed on record would corroborate the case of the claimants. It discloses that the cleaner of the offending vehicle was also travelling in the lorry at the time of accident, apart from three or four other passengers, who are cited as witness in the final report. 17. It is an admitted fact that none of them were summoned to the Court by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. There is no material placed before the Court to establish that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company challenged the Final Report before any other Forum. So, the evidence placed before the learned Tribunal would probable the plea of the claimants that both the deceased persons were pedestrians at the time of accident, walking by the side of the road to reach their work place and the offending vehicle turned turtle and fell on them as the respondent No.1, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, could not control the vehicle as it was going in high speed at the time of accident. 18. 18. 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 ; 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the above referred 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. 20. 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 non-examination 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.” 21. 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.” 22. 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.” 23. 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.” 23. 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 their 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. 24. In the appeals on hand, the evidence discussed above would probable the plea of the claimants rather than contentions of the respondent No.2/Insurance company. There is no cogent evidence placed on record to disbelieve the evidence lead by the claimants in both claim petitions. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and the appeals vide M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 and 2718 of 2012 filed by the respondent No.2/Insurance Company are liable to be ‘Dismissed’. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT NO.2: 25. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeals in M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 and 2718 of 2012 are liable to be “Dismissed”. 26. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2580 and 2718 of 2012 filed by the appellant/respondent No.2/Insurance Company are ‘Dismissed’ by confirming the Order and Decree dated 14.05.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.80 and 83 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.