Judgment : Since C.M.A.Nos.111 of 2010 & 1072 of 2010 arose out of same road accident and are connected on facts, evidence and on law, they were tagged together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The road accident was on 08.04.2002. In this accident, the spouses, Shanmugam and Rani died. Their children Sivakami and Prakash filed M.C.O.P.No.3 of 2003 and M.C.O.P.No.4 of 2003 claiming compensation for the death of their father and mother respectively. 3. The Tribunal found that the driver of the third respondent, insured with the fourth respondent, in which, the spouses have travelled and the driver of the appellant were equally responsible for the accident and thus, apportioned the negligence between them equally. In M.C.O.P.Nos.3 and 4 of 2003, it awarded Rs.6,14,000/- and Rs.4,10,000/-respectively and directed the private bus owner, his insurer and the State Transport Corporation to pay them the compensation amounts. 4. Aggrieved, the State Transport Corporation directed these appeals. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the FIR has been filed as against the private bus driver, the Criminal Court has also acquitted the driver of the Transport Corporation (see Ex.R1), in the circumstances, holding that the driver of the appellant is also responsible for the accident is not correct. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent contended that the driver of the appellant is also responsible for the accident. 7. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record and also the common Judgment of the Claims Tribunal. 8. What is stated in the FIR is not the Biblical words. It contains only the allegations. It alone is not sufficient to decide the issue. They will remain as it is unless established by relevant legal evidence. The findings of a Criminal Court is based on different standard of proof. Verdict of a Criminal Court cannot be a substitute for the decision of the Tribunal. Independent of the conclusion of the Criminal Court, the Tribunal had to decide the issue based on the evidence adduced before it. 9. The findings of a Criminal Court is based on different standard of proof. Verdict of a Criminal Court cannot be a substitute for the decision of the Tribunal. Independent of the conclusion of the Criminal Court, the Tribunal had to decide the issue based on the evidence adduced before it. 9. The evidence of P.W.3-Chinnasami, a passenger in the private bus disclose that at the time of accident the driver of the private bus as well as the driver of the appellant's bus came driven their vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicles dashed against each other and caused the accident. In the circumstances, analysing the evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly concluded that both the drivers are equally responsible for the accident. 10. As regards quantum, the Tribunal had adverted to their age, income, chosen the correct multiplier, effected the required deductions and calculated the compensation amount accordingly. There is nothing to interfere with the quantification of the damages done by the Tribunal. 11. In the result, both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed. The common award of the Tribunal is confirmed. Within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, the appellant shall deposit its share of amount, less amount, if any, already deposited. Now, that the minor claimant has attained majority, their respective share of compensation amount in both the claim petitions shall be paid to them, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.