Judgment : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants in OP No.41 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Kurnol, wherein and where under, a claim for an amount of Rs.11.00 lakhs as compensation for the death of Banda Nagamalleswara Rao was denied. 2. First appellant is the wife and appellants 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. According to them, on 31.01.1999 at about 7.00 PM, the deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing No. AP 04 A 4736 and was proceeding from Yemmiganur to Ananthapur. His brother B. Mallikarjuna was the pillion rider. It is stated that a lorry bearing No. AP.02T.6366, which was proceeding in front of their motorcycle, suddenly slowed down the speed by applying brakes. As a result of which, the motorcycle driven by the deceased dashed against the lorry from its back side. The deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot. P.W.2 who was the pillion rider also sustained grievous injuries. In connection with the said accident, a case in Cr.No.3 of 1999 was registered on the file of Pedda Vaduguru Police Station. The police after completion of investigation filed a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. Ex.A.1 is the copy of the F.I.R and Ex.A.2 is the copy of the charge sheet. It may be noted that the FIR was registered against an unknown person as the lorry went away without stopping after the accident. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 32 years by the date of accident. He studied up to M.Com and was working in M.G. Brothers at Ananthapur, getting Rs.4,000/-per month as salary. Hence the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation to an extent of Rs11.00 lakhs from the respondents. 3. The claim against the first respondent who is the driver of the offending vehicle was dismissed as no batta was paid and the second respondent who is the owner of the said vehicle remained ex parte. The third respondent – Insurance company filed its written statement stating that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle but due to the negligent driving of the deceased himself in dashing against the lorry from its backside. It is further stated that the lorry did not involve in the accident at all. It is further stated that the lorry did not involve in the accident at all. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also necessary parties to the petition. It is further stated in the written statement that the second respondent colluded with the claimants and he intentionally did not report the matter of accident to the third respondent. It is further stated that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: i. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP.02T.6366, resulting in the death of Banda Naga Malleswara Rao? ii. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? 5. In support of his case the claimants examined two witnesses as P.Ws.1 & 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A9. In support of the case of the contesting third respondent, a Senior Assistant in the office of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and EXs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. Ex.B.1 is the insurance policy, Ex.B.2 is the certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.59 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gooty and Ex.B.3 is the certified copy of deposition of P.W.1 in the said C.C.59 of 1999 i.e. P.W.2 herein. 6. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and she is not an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.2 who is the brother of the deceased was examined as an eyewitness. He deposed that on 31.01.1999 at about 7.00 PM himself and the deceased were proceeding on a motorcycle from Yemmiganur to Ananthapur. A lorry bearing No.AP.02T.6366 was going in front of their motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. He further deposed that the driver of the lorry slowed down the lorry suddenly without giving any signal. As a result, the motorcycle dashed against the lorry resulting in the deceased sustaining head injury, which proved fatal. The lorry was also not having the brake lights and that the lorry did not stop after the accident. According to PW.2, he gave complaint in Pedda Vaduguru Police Station about the incident. P.W.2 was cross examined at length. As a result, the motorcycle dashed against the lorry resulting in the deceased sustaining head injury, which proved fatal. The lorry was also not having the brake lights and that the lorry did not stop after the accident. According to PW.2, he gave complaint in Pedda Vaduguru Police Station about the incident. P.W.2 was cross examined at length. Though in chief examination P.W.2 stated that he also received injuries, but no document was produced to show that he sustained injuries in the said accident. He did not file any claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. P.W.2 admits that he did not gave the number of the lorry and also the name of the driver of the lorry in the F.I.R. He was present during inquest but could not give any particulars even at the time of inquest. The explanation given by P.W.2 for not giving number of the lorry was that the accident happened at 7.00 PM in the night and that the lorry sped away after the incident. 7. The Tribunal, after assessing the entire material available on record, held that the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal found that P.W.2 who is examined as an eyewitness is not a reliable witness as he gave inconsistent versions. In the criminal case where he was also examined as eyewitness, he did not support the prosecution case and was treated hostile and his present version is different from what he stated in criminal case. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim application. According to him, the F.I.R, inquest report and charge sheet marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3 coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. According to him, the findings in the criminal case cannot be taken into consideration for deciding a claim in the O.P. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company relies upon the judgment of the criminal court, which has become final, wherein P.W.2 herein who was examined as P.W.1 as an eyewitness to the incident did not support the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company relies upon the judgment of the criminal court, which has become final, wherein P.W.2 herein who was examined as P.W.1 as an eyewitness to the incident did not support the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.3 and 4 by name A. Uday Kumar and G.Marraiah who were examined as the owner and a friend of the accused before whom the driver of the offending lorry is alleged to have made confession with regard to the involvement of the vehicle in the said accident also did not support the case of the prosecution and they were also treated hostile in the said C.C.No.59 of 1999. In the said criminal case, P.W.2 deposed that on the date of accident himself land his brother i.e. the deceased boarded a lorry to go to Ananthapur, when the lorry reached near Kasepalli bus stop, the driver of the lorry applied sudden brakes and the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and died on the spot. P.W.2 further deposed that R.W.1 herein was not the driver of the said lorry. According to him, as the evidence of P.W.2 was found to be inconsistent and contrary to what he has stated in the present O.P., the Tribunal rightly disbelieved his evidence and held that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation since there is no evidence to show that the vehicle was involved in the said accident. 10. Though the appellants have shown the driver of the lorry as one of the respondents, they failed to pay batta for issuance of notice against him and so the petition against him was dismissed. The appellants also did not take any steps to summon him as a witness before the Tribunal. 11. The point that arises for consideration is whether the version given by P.W.2 in criminal case is binding on the Tribunal and whether the version of P.W.2 given in the Tribunal has to be eschewed from consideration in view of the evidence of P.W.2 in the criminal Court. 12. The F.I.R. was issued on the basis of the report given by P.W.2 and the same was brought on record and marked as Ex.A.1. No objection was raised by the respondents at the time of marking of the document. 12. The F.I.R. was issued on the basis of the report given by P.W.2 and the same was brought on record and marked as Ex.A.1. No objection was raised by the respondents at the time of marking of the document. The First Information Report given at the earliest point of time by P.W.2 indicates that the motorcycle driven by the deceased dashed against the lorry from its backside as the driver of the lorry who was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and in high speed without giving any signal suddenly applied brakes. P.W.2 has deposed before the Court narrating the manner in which the accident happened and as to how the deceased died. 13. It is no doubt true that P.W.2 who was examined as P.W.1 in the criminal case did not support his own version and hence the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused in the absence of any other evidence to connect the driver of the lorry with the said accident. There is no dispute with regard to the involvement of the said offending vehicle in the accident. The police investigated into the matter and found that said lorry bearing No.AP 04 A 4736 was responsible for the accident and filed charge sheet to that effect. The inquest conducted at the scene of offence indicates that there was a road accident and in the said accident the deceased died because of hitting the lorry from the back side. The postmortem examination which is marked as Ex.A.4 shows that the deceased sustained the following injuries: i. Abrasion 3” X 2” on Rt. Side forehead. ii. Lacerated injury with fracture bridge of nose just below the place between 2 eyebrows 1/2” x 1/8” , Bone Deep, iii. Depression with contusion on frontal bone 3” x 4” on dissection frontal bone fracture into multiple pieces. The above three injuries indicate that the deceased sustained injuries on coming into contact with the back portion of the lorry. 14. In Ram Sewak & Another Vs. Depression with contusion on frontal bone 3” x 4” on dissection frontal bone fracture into multiple pieces. The above three injuries indicate that the deceased sustained injuries on coming into contact with the back portion of the lorry. 14. In Ram Sewak & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another ( 1997 ACJ 1155 )the High Court of Allahabad, while negating the argument that acquittal in criminal court is sufficient to hold that there was no negligence, held as follows: “……… It is settled principle of law that the standard for adjudging the guilt of the accused in criminal law is beyond reasonable doubt and in civil cases, the court can take into consideration for adjudging any issue that evidence is sufficient on mere preponderance of probabilities. The legislature has provided different standards and as such the argument fails.” 15. In APSRTC vs. Sravaji Aruna (1991 ACJ 542)the question before the Hon’ble High Court was whether the Tribunal committed an error in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner when the criminal court found that the prosecution failed to establish rash and negligent driving of the driver. The Hon’ble High Court held that the judgment in the criminal court is not conclusive. It is open to the claimants to adduce evidence aliunde dehors the finding that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 16. This Hon’ble High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. Madiga Thappeta Ramakka and Others (1995 ACJ 358)held that findings given in criminal court judgment cannot be taken in aid and cannot be taken advantage of in civil matters. 17. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Laxmi Gontiya and Another Vs. Nand Lal Tahalramani and Others ( 1999 ACJ 241 ) held as under: “The manner and circumstances in which the accident occurred have come on record. A.W.2 by his evidence has established that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle. The respondent NO.1 did not appear in the witness-box who was the best person having first hand knowledge about the circumstances, in which the accident occurred. Therefore, by raising adverse inference, we hold that the accident was due to negligent driving of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. The respondent NO.1 did not appear in the witness-box who was the best person having first hand knowledge about the circumstances, in which the accident occurred. Therefore, by raising adverse inference, we hold that the accident was due to negligent driving of the motor vehicle involved in the accident. Besides, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can also be applied to avoid hardship, as the circumstance speaks for itself and the accident tells its own story. {See Pushpabai Purshotam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning and Pressing Company, 1977 ACJ 343 (SC)}. 18. The proceedings before the Tribunal are summary in nature and strict proof of evidence is not essential to prove the incident. It may also be noted here that the version of P.W.1 in the criminal case was not put to him during his cross examination in the present O.P, except eliciting an admission that he gave evidence before the criminal Court and that on the basis of his evidence the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted in the criminal case. However, he admits in the cross examination that the contents of F.I.R. were given by him to the police and the same are correct and he denies the suggestion to the effect that the lorry bearing No.A.P.02T 6366 is not involved in the accident at any time and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the said lorry. It may be noted here that the claimants who are wife and children of the deceased were not parties to the proceedings before the criminal Court. The claimants were not aware about the version given by a witness before the criminal Court and consequently the evidence in criminal case cannot be used as a basis to discard the testimony of a witness before the Tribunal. The F.I.R. and the inquest report narrate the manner in which the incident took place and also refer to the presence of motorcycle at the scene of offence. As noted above, the fact that the accused was acquitted in a criminal case is not by itself sufficient to absolve the insurance company of their liability. The F.I.R. and the inquest report narrate the manner in which the incident took place and also refer to the presence of motorcycle at the scene of offence. As noted above, the fact that the accused was acquitted in a criminal case is not by itself sufficient to absolve the insurance company of their liability. It is thus held that the evidence recorded in a criminal Court and the findings arrived at therein should not be used in claim petitions more so when the contents of the evidence of the witnesses in criminal case were not put to him when he was examined as an eyewitness before the Tribunal in claim petition. 19. In Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others ( 2009 (6) SCJ 368 ) the Supreme Court observed as follows: “It was necessary to borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied.” 20. In view of the findings arrived at, the version of the claimants that the accident occurring due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry stands established. 21. In the light of the observations made above, the CMA is allowed, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide on the question of liability for compensation on the part of the respondents. As the claimants have not received any compensation till now, the Tribunal shall be well advised to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. No order as to costs.