BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raisen, in Claim case No. 11 of 1993, dated 1. 3. 1993. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, accident took place on 7. 6. 1993, when bus No. MP 09-S 0125 dashed against truck No. CIJ 1567. The bus was driven by Angad Prasad, owned by sunil Kumar Jain and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. As a result of this accident, the claimant suffered injuries to nose, forehead between two eyebrows. His allegation is that he lost his eyesight in this accident, which happened due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. The opposition to the claim is that the truck owner and driver have not been made party to the case. Driver did not possess valid driving licence, liability of insurance company is limited. That apart, other facts have been disputed. The Claims Tribunal holds that bus was being driven rashly and negligently and caused the accident, is not proved. It is also not proved that the claimant was travelling by this bus from Sagar to Bhopal and on account of this accident he suffered injuries to eye, nose, head, ribs and chest or that he suffered grievous injuries to eye resulting in permanent disability. Accordingly, the claim has been dismissed. ( 3 ) THROUGH this appeal, findings of the claims Tribunal have been challenged. Substance of evidence clearly points out that the claimant was travelling by tourist bus No. MP 09-S 0125 from Sagar to Bhopal. The claimant states that it was being driven rashly and negligently, therefore, caused accident. He is corroborated by mahendra Kumar, AW 2, co-passenger in this bus, sitting by side of the driver. Read carefully, he states that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at a speed of 60/70 km. per hour. He further says that there was collision between two vehicles. He also states that the truck was being driven at a normal speed. Therefore, it can be understood clearly from the evidence what he intends to say is that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed of 60/70 km. per hour and the accident took place, otherwise the truck was moving at a normal speed. The bus driver, who could say otherwise, has not appeared in evidence. Therefore, it can be understood clearly from the evidence what he intends to say is that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed of 60/70 km. per hour and the accident took place, otherwise the truck was moving at a normal speed. The bus driver, who could say otherwise, has not appeared in evidence. Therefore, it can be concluded that he had no defence against the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the bus. Two F. I. Rs. were lodged by the drivers against each other, namely, 78 of 1993 (Criminal Case No. 221 of 1993) and 79 of 1993 (Criminal Case No. 224 of 1993 ). The Tribunal has not analysed and appreciated the evidence in correct perspectives. It seems to be under erroneous belief that the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, principle applicable in criminal trials forgetting that claim cases are to be proved and decided on preponderance of probabilities and strict rules of evidence are not applicable to trial of claim cases. Therefore, finding is set aside and it is held that driver of bus No. MP 09-S 0125 was responsible for committing the accident. ( 4 ) HAVING come to the aforesaid conclusion, we turn to examine the next question, namely, the injuries suffered by claimant and compensation awardable to him. The claimant has stated that he suffered injuries to eye, nose, head, ribs and chest. But there is no evidence for injuries to nose, head, ribs and chest. Dr. Pramod Godre, AW 3, is an Ophthalmologist. He states that on 15. 6. 1993, he examined claimant and found that he had diminished eyesight right 6/60 while left was 6/6. There was a swelling on right macula while left eye was normal. It is absolutely clear from the statement of doctor that the claimant was under the treatment of the doctor from 15. 6. 1993 to 5. 7. 1993. There are medical prescriptions from 7. 6. 1993 to 28. 6. 19. 93. He was admitted in the hospital (private ward), therefore, had to pay not only for medicines but also for room rent and tests conducted on his eyes. Permanent disability certificate is exh. P/28 issued by Dr. P. O. Godre, AW 3. He has stated that eyesight has diminished. Claimant also states that eyesight has affected his business also. He can neither read nor write. Permanent disability certificate is exh. P/28 issued by Dr. P. O. Godre, AW 3. He has stated that eyesight has diminished. Claimant also states that eyesight has affected his business also. He can neither read nor write. Diminishing eyesight has seriously affected and will continue to affect him in later stage. He was 39 years old at the time of accident, therefore, he has to live for long say around 30 years more with this disability. Consequently, in the aforesaid circumstances, just compensation awardable in this case is Rs. 1,00,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of application till December, 2000, thereafter 9 per cent till date of payment. The owner and driver of the bus are jointly and severally liable for the same and since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, it shall pay the same within two months. Costs Rs. 5,000. Appeal allowed. .