S. PALANIVELU, J.

Both the appeals are arising from the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2002 made in C.M.A. No. 848 of 1999 on the file of the VI Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai granting compensation of Rs. 6,70,500/- as against the claim of 12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the road traffic accident that happened on 112. 1998 at about 00.15 hours due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing Regn. No. TN 01 G 0672 belonging to the respondent department.

2. C.M.A. No. 797 of 2003 is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation while C.M.A. No. 3350 of 2003 is preferred by the Department praying to set aside the impugned award and decree. For the sake of convenience the parties in these appeals will be hereinafter referred to according to their status before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal in brief is that on 112. 2008 at about 00.15 hours, while the claimant was riding his motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TSH 1570 from North to South along Anna Salai, Chennai, near Nandanam, Y.M.C.A. “U” turn, a jeep bearing Regn. No. TNO1G0672 came in a rash and negligent manner without showing any signal dashed against the motor cycle by means of which he sustained grievous injuries and he was hospitalized. The jeep driver, who attempted to take “U” turn so negligently and in a rash manner without any indication alone was responsible for the accident. Hence, he filed the original Petition seeking compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- from the respondents.

.4. In the counter, the respondent department resisted the claim and contended that While the claimant took “U” turn, he dashed against the bumper of the jeep and thereby the accident took place. The injured was alone responsible for the accident. At the time of accident, he was in an inebriated condition. It is false to alleged that the jeep driver came at a great speed and caused the accident. In any event, the compensation claimed is excessive. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.

5. As far as fastening of liability on jeep driver is concerned, Mrs. Bhavani Subbarayan, learned Special Government Pleader (Original Side) would submit that inasmuch as the Judicial Magistrate has turned down the version of the claimant in a criminal proceedings that the jeep driver came in a rash and negligent manner and he was acquitted from the charges, no liability could be fastened on the respondent.

6. Conversely, Mr. M. Swamikannu, learned counsel for the claimant would contend that even though the criminal case ended in favour of the jeep driver, still the Tribunal has believed the oral testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were aware of the accident and in this regard the Tribunal’s findings maybe confirmed.

7. A decision of the Criminal Court does not have the effect of binding nature on the proceedings before the Civil Court including the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the reason that the proof in both the Civil and Criminal cases are having two different categories of standards. In criminal cases, guilt of the accused must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, while in civil cases, the rights of the parties or matter in issue shall be decided on preponderance of probabilities. If a party to the case relied upon decision of the criminal Court and insists the Civil Court to give credence to the said decision, it is incumbent upon the party to gather further materials in the case, which would support the observations and the decisions of the criminal Court. If any material is available in the case, which would corroborate or strengthen the decision of the criminal Court, then, there is no embargo for the Civil Court to place reliance upon it.

.8. Coming to the facts of the case on hand, excepting the criminal Court judgment, nothing is favour for the side of the respondent Department. Worthwhile it is to note that even the driver of the jeep, who got acquittal before the criminal Court was