JUDGMENT Maheshwari, J. -- Appellant has preferred this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 13.5.2004 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni in claim case No. 222/02, whereby the claim of respondent No. 1 to 4 regarding vehicular death of Dr. Sunil has been allowed and an award of Rs. 3,82,800/- has been passed against the appellant and respondent No.6 (1) to 6 (g) and 7 (a) to 7 (e). The factual matrix of the case are that on 2.9.1998 at about 1:30 noon Dr. Sunil husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No.2 to 5 was going to his clinic by bicycle, on the way near Kalwara road he was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. MPJ 1458, driven by respondent No.6 in rash and negligental manner, resultantly Dr. Sunil got injuries, then immediately he was shifted to Medical College, Jabalpur where during the course of treatment he succumbed to death on 3.9.1998. The incident was reported to police and on investigation respondent No.6 was charge-sheeted under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. Late Sunder Lal Gautam as predecessor of appellant and respondent 6 (a) to 6 (g) and respondent No.7 (a) to 7 (e) was the registered owner of the alleged truck, while it was not insured. Claimants respondents No.1 to 5 initially filed claim for compensation of Rs. 33,40,000/-. In reply appellant pleaded that such incident was not caused by his truck but Dr. Sunil during riding of bicycle fell down on a stone and his head came into the contact of stone and got injuries. It is also pleaded that respondent No.6 has already been acquitted from criminal charge, so no liability regarding compensation can be imposed against truck owner and the driver. On framing of issue parties led their evidence and on appreciation impugned award was passed against appellant and respondent No.6 and 6 (a) to 6 (g) and respondent No.7 (a) to 7 (e). Hence, this appeal is preferred at the instance of one of the L.Rs. of said Sunder Lal Gupta for setting aside the impugned award. Counsel for appellant submitted that such incident was not caused by his truck and Dr. Hence, this appeal is preferred at the instance of one of the L.Rs. of said Sunder Lal Gupta for setting aside the impugned award. Counsel for appellant submitted that such incident was not caused by his truck and Dr. Sunil died because of falling down during riding of bicycle, resultantly his head came into the contact of stone by force and got injured in which no role was played by said truck in any manner. He also submitted that respondent No.6 has already been acquitted by the concerning Criminal Court and in these circumstances no liability can be levelled against appellant or other L.Rs. of Sunder Lal Gautam. In support of his submissions he also referred the statements of witnesses recorded before the Tribunal. On perusing the impugned award, it appears that on the date of incident Dr. Sunil was going on bicycle to open his clinic and when he reached near Kalwara Road the offending truck dashed him due to rash and negligental driving of respondent No. 1 and he got injuries and on shifting to hospital during the treatment he succumbed to death. This scenario has been proved by Manoj Singh (CW 2), who saw the incident and informed immediately to the wife of the deceased and the circumstances explained by this witness warrants that the deceased Dr. Sunil was dead because of he was dashed by the truck in rash and negligental manner and not by falling down from the bicycle. Although Janki Bai w/o Dr. Sunil is not the eye witness but immediately after the incident she reached to spot and saw her husband in injured condition as explained by Manoj Singh (CW 2). Thus, story put forth by Manoj Singh was supported not only by lanki Bai but also by other witnesses. It has also come in the evidence that at the place of incident, neither the road was in dilapidated condition nor a big stone was on the road. This evidence is further supported by the investigation papers of the criminal case. Thus, story put forth by Manoj Singh was supported not only by lanki Bai but also by other witnesses. It has also come in the evidence that at the place of incident, neither the road was in dilapidated condition nor a big stone was on the road. This evidence is further supported by the investigation papers of the criminal case. While in the evidence of the appellant, Sandeep Sethia (NAW 2) has tried to prove that accident was not caused by the truck but the deceased fell down from his bicycle to save himself from ditch, but in view of aforesaid discussion of evidence, this witness was not rightly found reliable by the Tribunal upon appreciation of evidence and we do not find any infirmity in it. So far other submissions regarding judgment of Criminal Court is concerned, burden of proof in criminal case is different, it is suffice to say that every case is decided on its own recorded evidence, so the decision of criminal case is not of much relevance to adjudicate the claim case. Therefore, judgment of Criminal Court also does not help the appellant and the Tribunal has not committed any infirmity, error or any illegality in passing the impugned award. Thus, this appeal has' no merits and deserves to be and is hereby dismissed at the initial stage. However, there shall be no order as to costs.