JUDGMENT Sukhvinder Kaur, J. By way of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 03.08.2023 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, vide which the claim petition titled as Prem Devi and another Vs. Devender and others, filed under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was partly allowed and compensation of Rs. 10,10,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum was awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.03.2021 Sandeep (since deceased) was coming to his house after taking household articles and at about 7.00 P.M., when he reached in front of Housing Board Colony on Kacha Path, a tractor bearing registration No.HR-82/9454 came at a very fast speed being driven by respondent No.1 in rash and negligent manner and hit Sandeep from the backside. Resultantly, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Narnaul, where doctors declared him as dead. After reporting of the matter to the police, a criminal case under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC was registered vide FIR No.221 dated 18.03.2021 at Police Station, City Narnaul. The claimants claimed Rs. 50,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the respondents qua death of Sandeep. 3. The said claim petition was contested by respondent No.3/ the present appellant and respondents No.1 and 2 in the said case and they filed their respective written statements. 4. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 by driving vehicle bearing registration No.HR-82/9454? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioners are entitled? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether the terms and conditions of the insurance policy stood violated? OPR 4. Relief. 5. To prove their case, claimant No.2 Naresh Kumar appeared as PW1 and claimants also examined Sanjay son of Bahadur Singh eyewitness as PW2. Thereafter, the claimants closed their evidence after tendering following documents :- Ex.P1 Copy of FIR Ex.P2 Certified copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 Copy of PMR Ex.P4 Copy of notice under Section 133 of MV Act Ex.P5 Copy of DL Ex.P6 Copy of RC Ex.P7 Copy of insurance policy 6. Thereafter, the claimants closed their evidence after tendering following documents :- Ex.P1 Copy of FIR Ex.P2 Certified copy of report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 Copy of PMR Ex.P4 Copy of notice under Section 133 of MV Act Ex.P5 Copy of DL Ex.P6 Copy of RC Ex.P7 Copy of insurance policy 6. To rebut the evidence of the claimants, respondents No.1 and 2 did not examine any witness and closed their evidence after tendering following documents:- Ex.R11 Copy of DL Ex.R12 Certified copy of RC Ex.R13 Certified copy of insurance policy 7. Appellant-Insurance Company closed the evidence in the said petition after tendering following documents:- Ex.R1 Certified copy of statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.R2 Certified copy of statement of Ravi under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.R3 Certified copy of statement of Sanjay under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.R4 Certified copy of motor mechanic report Ex.R5 Copy of DL report Ex.R6 Copy of RC history Ex.R7 Copy of insurance policy Ex.R8 Copy of legal notice Ex.R9 Copy of legal notice Ex.R10 & 11 RC reports 8. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the evidence brought on record came to the conclusion that the accident in which Sandeep lost his life was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1 (driver) in the said petition. 9. The learned Tribunal by further taking into account that deceased was 13 years of age at the time of his death and was student of 7th standard, assessed notional income of the deceased to be Rs. 50,000/- per annum. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- were awarded towards loss of estate. Claimants were held entitled to filial consortium of Rs. 40,000/- each being parents of deceased. Multiplier of 18' was applied. Claimants were held entitled to total compensation of Rs. 10,10,000/- which was calculated as under:- (a) Income Rs.50,000/- per annum (b) Total dependency after applying multiplier of 18 (Rs.50,000/- x 18 = Rs. 9,00,000/-) (c) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- (d) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- (e) Filial consortium Rs.80,000/- 10. The claim petition was partly allowed with costs and claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 10,10,000/- as compensation on account of death of Sandeep caused in the accident alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. 9,00,000/-) (c) Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- (d) Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- (e) Filial consortium Rs.80,000/- 10. The claim petition was partly allowed with costs and claimants were awarded a sum of Rs. 10,10,000/- as compensation on account of death of Sandeep caused in the accident alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. It was held that though liability to pay compensation is of driver and owner of the offending vehicle, yet in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it shall be discharged by respondent No.3-Insurance Company (appellant herein) by making payment. 11. The appellant-Insurance Company being aggrieved by the impugned award dated 03.08.2023 has filed the present appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the relevant record. 13. At the outset, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he does not challenge the award regarding quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal and he only challenges the finding of the learned Tribunal whereby it was held that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-82/9454. He has further contended that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the vehicle in question has been falsely implicated by the claimants just to fetch compensation from the appellant-insurance company. Initially, the FIR was registered against the unknown vehicle and unknown driver and PW1-Naresh Kumar is not the eyewitness to the accident, as he got recorded in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made before the police that at his own level he found that vehicle bearing registration No.HR-82/9454 had caused the alleged accident. He has contended that PW2-Sanjay, is also not the eyewitness and was not present at the spot and was nominated later on by the claimants to get false compensation from the insurance company. He has argued that the claimants have failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver as required under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act so the claim petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. In this context, he has relied upon United India Insurance Company Ltd vs. Rajendra Singh and others, decided on 14.03.2000; Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. In this context, he has relied upon United India Insurance Company Ltd vs. Rajendra Singh and others, decided on 14.03.2000; Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.C. Kumar and another, ILR 2009 Kar 2921 and SLP No.1110 of 2017 titled as Shafiq Vs. ICICI Lombard. 14. In order to prove rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the driver/ respondent No.1, the claimants have examined PW2-Sanjay, who was eyewitness to the accident. The perusal of his testimony reveals that he has given a detailed account regarding manner of happening of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 resulting in death of Sandeep. Besides that claimants have also produced on record certified copy of final report (Ex.P2) submitted by the police as envisaged under Section 173 Cr.P.C., to substantiate their plea that respondent No.1 was facing the trial for commission of offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC for driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and for causing death of Sandeep. 15. To rebut this evidence of the claimants, the driver/ respondent No.1 even did not bother to appear as his own witness to deny that he was not the author of the accident, for which adverse inference is to be drawn against him. The Tribunal has rightly placed reliance upon Raju vs. Sukhwinder Rai, 2006(4) R.C.R. (Civil) 83 in this context. 16. It is trite law that in the motor vehicle accident claims cases, the burden of proof on the claimants, is not that heavy as is required to prove a criminal charge for rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Nothing has been brought on record to show that respondent No.1 made any complaint to concerned SHO or higher police officers regarding his false implication. 17. So from the testimony of PW2, registration of FIR, presentation of challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against respondent No.1, and non appearance of respondent No.1 as his own witness, the Tribunal has rightly held liable respondent No.1/ driver of offending vehicle for causing death of Sandeep in the accident in question by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 18. The evidence on record has been rightly appreciated by the Tribunal on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 18. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine being devoid of any merits. 19. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.