JUDGMENT 1. - Having lost her son, Satyaveer, aged about 18 years and having lost her case before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), the appellant has challenged the award dated 13th September, 2006, passed by the learned Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26th December, 2004, Satyaveer was returning on a motorcycle alongwith his friend, Rajesh Kumar. The motorcycle was being driven by Rajesh Kumar. When the motorcycle reached near the Nagarpalika situated at Narnol Road, due to rash and negligent driving of Rajesh Kumar, the motorcycle met with an accident Satyaveer Singh sustained grievous injuries and was referred to SMS hospital at Jaipur. But unfortunately, he expired during the course of treatment. The appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate her case, she examined two other witnesses besides herself and submitted seventeen documents. The respondents examined three witness and submitted four documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. B.C. Rawat, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in ignoring the evidence which was recorded before it, and by heavily relying on the evidence which was recorded by the Criminal Court trying the criminal case under Sections 304A and 279 of IPC. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal should have considered the evidence produced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal itself. 4. On the other hand Mr. Virendra Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the respondent, has contended that the learned Tribunal is free to consider the evidence which was produced before the Criminal Court as the proceedings of the criminal trial have equal bearing on the finding of the learned Tribunal. After all, both the criminal case as well as the claim petition arise out of the same set of facts. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that thee are two witnesses. While A.W. 2, Satish, has been produced as an eye-witness, NAW-2 Satish has been produced as the person who lodged the F.I.R. before the police. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that thee are two witnesses. While A.W. 2, Satish, has been produced as an eye-witness, NAW-2 Satish has been produced as the person who lodged the F.I.R. before the police. According to the learned Tribunal, while A.W. 2 Satish was produced as an eye-witness, NAW-2 Satish was not an eye-witness. However, the learned Tribunal has relied more upon the testimony of NAW-2, Satish, and has totally ignored the testimony of NAW-2 Satish, and has totally ignored that in the criminal trial, A.W. 2 Satish was not produced as an eye-witness of the prosecution. Interestingly, NAW-2 Satish has turned hostile before the learned Tribunal, although he had supported the case of prosecution in the criminal trial. 7. Surprisingly, the learned Tribunal has also overlooked the testimony of A.W. 3, Mahaveer. The learned Tribunal is also swayed by the fact that there was some delay in lodging of the F.I.R. before the police. But it has ignored the fact that after the death of Satyaveer, there was no one left in the family except the present appellant, an old woman, who could not have lodged the F.I.R. To say the least, the learned Tribunal has made much out of the delay in lodging of the F.I.R., meanwhile forgetting the fact that a woman who has lost her son may not be in physical or mental position to immediately lodge the F.I.R. 8. A bare perusal of impugned award also reveals that the very approach of the learned Tribunal is misplaced. Instead of analyzing the testimonies of A.W. 2 Satish and Mahaveer, the learned Tribunal is influenced by the fact that those witnesses who were produced as an eye-witness have turned hostile during the course of criminal proceedings itself. It is also more influenced by the testimony of NAW 2 Satish. It is, indeed, trite to state that while the finding of a Civil Court is binding on the Criminal Court, the finding of a Criminal Court could not and should not influence the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is supposed to adjudge the case on the basis of evidence produced before it and not on the basis of testimonies given before the Criminal Court. The Tribunal is supposed to adjudge the case on the basis of evidence produced before it and not on the basis of testimonies given before the Criminal Court. In this view of the matter, the award is hereby quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide this case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 9. With those observations, this appeal is, hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed. *******