The standard of proof for negligence in a compensation case is preponderance of probability, and the findings of a criminal case are not binding in a compensation case.

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of Rs.19,600/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 to 4 (legal representatives of Claimant Roop Lal) for Roop Lal’s (since deceased) having suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 19.02.1995.

2. The compensation awarded under various heads is extracted hereunder in a tabulated form:-

Sl. No.	Compensation under various heads	Awarded by the Claims Tribunal
1.	Loss to Estate for the Expenses Incurred on Medial Treatment	600/-
2.	Loss to Estate due to Loss of Income	12,000/-
3.	Loss to Estate due to Expenses incurred on Conveyance & Special Diet	7,000/-
	Total	Rs.19,600/-

3. The main ground of challenge raised by the Appellant is that his two wheeler scooter bearing no.DL-1SA-1243 was not involved in the accident at all. Hence, the Claims Tribunal erred in making the Appellant responsible for causing the accident.

4. I have the Trial Court record before me.

5. Apart from the registration of criminal case against the Appellant being FIR No.78/1995, Police Station Badarpur which resulted in the Appellant’s prosecution under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Shankar Lal, son of injured Roop Lal also filed his Affidavit Ex.PW-4/A and entered the witness box as PW-4 to depose about the accident. Since injured Roop Lal had expired, his statement could not be recorded. However, statement of injured Roop Lal was recorded in the criminal case being FIR No.78/1995 wherein he testified that he was standing on the kacha road near Sible Cinema in order to cross the road when a two wheeler came from the Delhi side which was proceeding towards Faridabad side and the scooterist dashed against him. He suffered several injuries on account of the forceful impact. Although, injured Roop Lal initially did not identify the accused correctly but later on he identified the Appellant as the person having caused the accident. This testimony of injured Roop Lal recorded in the criminal case against the Appellant coupled with the Appellant’s prosecution is sufficient to establish the involvement of the Appellant’s two wheeler scooter no.DL-1SA-1243 and the fact that the accident was caused on account of Appellant’s rash and negligent driving.

6. The Appellant himself entered the witness box as RW1 and testified that he noticed an old person lying on the road. He stopped his scooter in order to help him. The vehicle which caused the accident had fled away from the spot. He removed the injured to the hospital at the instance of the police. He added that there was no zebra crossing near the place wherefrom injured Roop Lal was to cross the road. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not make any complaint to the higher police authorities for his false implication in the criminal case. He admitted that he got his vehicle released on superdari.

7. In the absence of any protest against his implication in the criminal case by the Appellant and failure to give even any suggestion to injured Roop Lal in the criminal case, it is difficult to believe the Appellant’s version that he had stopped his two wheeler just to help the injured who was lying on the road side. However, it is true that the Appellant was acquitted in the criminal case.

8. It is well settled that finding of a criminal case will not be binding on the Claims Tribunal deciding the award of compensation in case of death or injury to a victim of a motor vehicular accident. In a criminal case, guilt of an accused is required to be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt whereas in a Claim Petition, the involvement and negligence is required to be proved merely on touchstone of preponderance of probability. I