JUDGMENT : 1. The challenge in present appeals is under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the common judgment and awards dated 19.04.2002 in Claim Petition Nos. 218 of 2001 and 219 of 2001 respectively, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh. Being dissatisfied with the award, these appeals are at the instance of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, “The RSRTC”), wherein the bus owned by the appellant was involved. 2. The version given by the claimants goes like this: On 07.12.1997 at about 11:00 am, on Badwai Majra to Peepli Khera road in the jurisdiction of police station Dungla District Chittorgarh, driver of the RSRTC bus Govind Singh was driving bus No. RJ-27-P-1468 at a very high speed and as a result of his rash and negligent driving, bus got swerved on wrong side of the road and rammed into a motorcycle bearing registration No. RPZ-5633 which was being driven by deceased Radhey Shyam. Another deceased Sohan Lal was pillion rider. The accident resulted in fatal injuries to both the motorcyclist namely, Radhey Shyam and Sohan Lal. 3. The dependents of both the deceased filed claim petitions claiming compensation in various heads from RSRTC and driver of the bus. The RSRTC and driver of the bus hotly disputed their rashness and negligence, however, the Claims Tribunal held that RSRTC bus driver Govind Singh was solely rash and negligent in causing the accident and awarded compensation to the claimants under various heads. The awards have given rise to the appeals by the RSRTC. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi appearing for the appellant-RSRTC has strongly argued that the Tribunal was not justified in appreciation of evidence produced by both the parties, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence in its correct perspective and such approach is contrary to the law. The Tribunal has adopted a very casual approach in determining the fact of rashness and negligence of driver of the bus and erroneously concluded that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 5. He further contended that the appellant took defence that no eye-witness evidence was produced by the claimants that would establish the rashness and negligence of the bus driver. 5. He further contended that the appellant took defence that no eye-witness evidence was produced by the claimants that would establish the rashness and negligence of the bus driver. Conversely, bus driver and conductor of the RSRTC testified themselves during the trial proving that the accident resulted solely from rash and negligent driving of motorcycle driver i.e., deceased Radhey Shyam. There was no justification for the Tribunal to disbelieve the credibility of their statements and discarding their evidence simply treating them interested witnesses. He submits that an adverse inference should have been drawn by the Tribunal against the claimants. 6. In addition to above, the learned counsel has also emphasized that site plan of place of occurrence was not produced and proved in evidence by claimants. The Tribunal therefore, erred in placing excessive and utmost reliance on the same. According to him, only finding page (Ex-1) of the charge-sheet was produced in evidence, instead of complete charge-sheet. Other documents of charge-sheet such as site plan, site description memo, mechanical inspection report of motorcycle, statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and so on, were not tendered in evidence at all. The entire charge-sheet was crucial for consideration of application of principle of “res-ipsa-loquitur”. According to him, mere some papers of the charge-sheet cannot be the sole basis for success of claim petition and even Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-6 were not proved by competent and scribe witnesses. Therefore, the approach of the Tribunal was contrary to the law. 7. He lastly submits that findings recorded on the aspect of rashness and negligence of bus driver warrants reversal, therefore, judgment of learned Tribunal be set aside. The appeals be allowed and both claim petitions should be dismissed. 8. Contrary to it, Mr. Deelip Kawadia, learned counsel for the claimants has not only supported the impugned judgment and awards but has also argued for enhancement in the award amount, without filing a cross appeal by stating that the award amount is rather on the lower side in view of income of deceased, multiplier applied and deductions made. He further contends that sufficient materials were there on the record in support of the averments of claimants. 9. It is further pointed out that it was not necessary for the claimants to strictly prove the factum and manner of accident. He further contends that sufficient materials were there on the record in support of the averments of claimants. 9. It is further pointed out that it was not necessary for the claimants to strictly prove the factum and manner of accident. Strict proof of accident caused by a particular vehicle in a specific manner may not be possible for the claimants to prove. The claimants were only required to establish their case based on the principle of preponderance of probability. In the light of aforesaid contentions, it is argued that the findings of the Tribunal on the issue of rashness and negligence on the part of bus driver does not require any interference. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of appeals, while requesting a substantial increase in the amount of both the awards. 10. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the impugned common judgment/ awards so also scanned through the record of the Tribunal. 11. I have perused the entire judgment. From perusal of the same, this Court finds that factum of the accident is not disputed. The only dispute is whether the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the involved bus by its driver Govind Singh or on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased Radhey Shyam. 12. From perusal of the same, this Court finds that factum of the accident is not disputed. The only dispute is whether the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the involved bus by its driver Govind Singh or on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcycle by the deceased Radhey Shyam. 12. The Tribunal while relying on the evidence of the claimants held against the bus driver of RSRTC primarily observing:- ^^--------------- ifjpkyd vkSj MªkbZoj dk c;ku fgrc) gSa D;ksafd ?kVuk vius vki esa n'kkZrh gS fd tc ,d Vªd vk jgh Fkh rks Vªd dks vksojVsd jksM+ost cl us fd;kA cl esa 50&60 lokfj;ka Fkh vkSj iqfyl us ckn rrh'k xokg xksfoUn flag MªkbZoj ds f[kykQ pktZ'khV is'k dhA vksojVsd djrs le; f'kodj.k flag ds c;kuksa ds vuqlkj cl dh LihM 50&60 fdyks ehVj izfr ?k.Vk FkhA xokg dk dFku gS fd og dUMDVj Fkk vkSj vkxs dh rjQ og fVfdV dkV jgk FkkA uD'kk ekSdk lcls egRoiw.kZ gSa D;ksafd lEHko gSa fd jksM+ost dk cl pkyd vkSj daMDVj viuh xyrh ugha crk;saxs vkSj tks uD'kk ekSdk cuk;k x;k gS og Lora= tkap ,tsalh }kjk cuk;k x;k gS vkSj mlh ds vk/kkj ij fu"d"kZ iqfyl us fudkyk gSaA xokgku ds c;ku ysdj iqfyl us ;g lEiw.kZ rrh'k vkSj ?kVuk fujh{k.k LFky ds vk/kkj MªkbZoj xksfoUnflag }kjk jksM+ost cl dks xQyr ,oa ykijokgh ls rst jrkj ls pykdj dkuksM+ ls Hkh.Mj ihiyh [ksM+k ds ikl lkeus ls cqyV eksVjlkbfdy tks vk jgh Fkh] ds VDdj ekjh ftlls eksVjlkbZfdy ij cSBs jk/ks';ke o lksguyky dh e`R;q gqbZ gS vkSj iqfyl us blh vk/kkj ij vkjksi i= is'k fd;k gSA vr% cl MªkbZoj dh xQyr ,oe ykijokgh ÁFken"V;k ekuh tkrh gSA 13. This Court cannot ascertain whether the term “prima facie” was intentionally or inadvertently used by the Tribunal, as there is no scope for providing any prima facie findings in the determination of motor accident claim petitions. The Tribunal is obliged to make its final determination and decision. 14. Further, I find that no oral evidence was produced by claimants as to the manner in which the accident occurred. The disputed fact was that which of the two drivers was driving in rash and negligent manner. Manoharlal (PW-1) is father of deceased Radhey Shyam and Jamna Lal (PW-2) is son of deceased Sohan Lal. They both were not present at the place of occurrence. The disputed fact was that which of the two drivers was driving in rash and negligent manner. Manoharlal (PW-1) is father of deceased Radhey Shyam and Jamna Lal (PW-2) is son of deceased Sohan Lal. They both were not present at the place of occurrence. The driver and conductor of the bus namely, Govind Singh (NAW-1) and Shiv Karan Singh (NAW-2) have deposed in the matter and claimed that:- A metador vehicle approached from the front side and its driver veered to the side to make way. A waiving motorcycle appeared from the front with two riders. He turned all the four wheels off the road and stopped the bus completely. However, despite these precautions, the motorcyclist collided with the bus in front side. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist.” The conductor Shivkaran Singh (NAW-2) also deposed that, “Our bus was moving at a slow speed, staying on the right side of the road and had descended the road upon spotting the motorcycle. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist”. 15. Above was the only ocular evidence recorded during the trial in respect of the manner of driving of both the vehicles. 16. The Tribunal has not accepted the version of both driver and conductor of the bus treating them to be “interested witnesses” and relied upon the finding page (Exhibit-1) of the charge-sheet without there being remaining papers of the charge-sheet on record. No site plan of the place of occurrence, no crime scene description memo and no other important documents of the charge-sheet was produced except below mentioned five documents:- Exhibit-1 Conclusion page of the charge-sheet Exhibit-2 Formal FIR Exhibit-3 PMR of Radhey Shyam and Sohan Lal Exhibit-4 Mechanical inspection report of the bus Exhibit-5 Certificate of fitness of bus 17. Now, the question is one of fundamental importance whether solely based on the aforementioned five documents and without producing any oral evidence in this respect, rash and negligent driving of bus driver could have been considered proved by the Tribunal. 18. The approach to be adopted by the Tribunal for determining the issue of rash and negligent in motor accident claim cases has been spelled out by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various pronouncements. 19. 18. The approach to be adopted by the Tribunal for determining the issue of rash and negligent in motor accident claim cases has been spelled out by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various pronouncements. 19. No doubt, the approach of the Courts/Tribunals while dealing with claim matters has to be sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot or the hardships that the claimants usually faces in presenting the witnesses and collecting information of the accident especially when they themselves were not present at the spot of accident. Further, the Courts/ Tribunals must be cognizant of the fact that the strict principles of evidence and standard of proof like in a criminal case are not applicable in motor accident claim cases. The standard proof in such matters is one of the preponderance of probabilities rather than principles beyond a reasonable doubt. 20. The Courts/Tribunals have to be mindful that the approach of the Courts/Tribunals while examining merit of claim cases should be only to analyze material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimants’ version is more likely than not true. The Courts/Tribunals should also draw appropriate inferences from the failure of the parties to produce sufficient material and evidence. The legal effect of such failure must be taken into account by the Courts/Tribunals. 21. In the present case, the Tribunal does not appear to have assessed and evaluated the evidence available on record from the aforesaid perspective which was required to be adopted. 22. The circumstance that the conclusion page (Exhibit-1) of the charge sheet revealed that it was the bus driver Govind Singh alone who was negligent, may have a relevant factor but certainly that was not the only conclusive factor. The depositions of the bus driver Govind Singh and conductor Shiv Karan Singh were also available on record which was equally important factor in respect of manner of driving of both the drivers. Civil cases are to be determined on the basis of the evidence produced in that specific case only. The question also arises as to whether the findings of a police investigation can serve as the sole basis for decision in a civil case like the present one. 23. Civil cases are to be determined on the basis of the evidence produced in that specific case only. The question also arises as to whether the findings of a police investigation can serve as the sole basis for decision in a civil case like the present one. 23. While on one hand, the learned Tribunal held bus driver Govind Singh responsible for the accident, on the other hand, he was absolved from the responsibility of paying compensation on the ground that he was working under employment of the RSRTC. 24. It sounds very unnatural. The law is well settled that so long as driver commits torts in the course of his employment, both employer and driver are joint tortfeasors. In case of joint tortfeasors or vicarious liability, the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. Each is liable for the whole damage and judgment obtained against all of them jointly, may be executed in full against any of them. 25. Based on such factors, the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in appreciation of oral and documentary evidence produced by both the parties and made a mistake and illegality in disbelieving the statements of bus driver and conductor merely on the ground of “interestedness”. 26. The Tribunal was not justified in appreciation of evidence and findings arrived at since the Tribunal has placed excessive reliance on the site plan and the conclusion page of the charge sheet. What is more, the site plan was not on record. The Tribunal has held that the charge sheet has been concluded on the basis of site plan memo of place of occurrence. Though, no witness had explained the contents of the site plan or conclusion of charge sheet. 27. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal should not have been placed such excessive reliance on site plan and conclusion of the police investigation. The Tribunal, without good reasons, has disbelieved the evidence of driver and conductor of the bus. The question was whether on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, the version of claimants were more probable than the version of the bus driver as well as conductor and this question was required to be answered based upon justified grounds. 28. The Tribunal had erred in not taking note of all the factors mentioned above. The question was whether on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities, the version of claimants were more probable than the version of the bus driver as well as conductor and this question was required to be answered based upon justified grounds. 28. The Tribunal had erred in not taking note of all the factors mentioned above. These facts ought to have been considered by the Tribunal while deciding the issue of rashness and negligence in the right perspective. For all the aforesaid reasons, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligence are required to be set aside and are hereby set aside. 29. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the issue of rashness and negligence of the bus driver are vitiated by a very casual approach in appreciation of evidence and, therefore, calls for fresh consideration in the light of the discussions noticed above. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to remand the matters to the Tribunal. 30. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed. The common judgment and awards dated 19.04.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh is hereby set aside. Both the matters are remitted back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh to decide the claim petitions on the basis of the material available on record and in the light of the observations made hereinabove within 3 months from today positively. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 31. There shall be no orders as to costs. The record of the Tribunal below shall be sent back forthwith.