JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: (Oral) - The question involved in this appeal is” as to whether the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, can dismiss the claim petition on the ground that the accident is not proved, if the driver of the offending vehicle is ultimately convicted by the Criminal Court for the offences under Sections 279/304-A of the IPC ?”. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, dated 07.2.2000 by which the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of deceased Gurmail Singh has been dismissed on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove the neglience on the part of Shiv Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle. 3. In brief, on 11.8.1996, while Gurmail Singh deceased was going towards Bibi Wala Chowk from Old Bus Stand, Bathinda on his scooter bearing No. PJB-3990, he was run over by jeep bearing registration No.PB-08H-3252, driven by Shiv Kumar (respondent No.1) at a very fast speed, rashly and negligently while coming from opposite direction. The deceased Gurmail Singh suffered multiple injuries and was admitted to Civil Hospital, Bathinda by Constable Sarabjit Singh, who was present near the place of accident alongwith other police officials in connection with naka bandi. Gurmail Singh succumbed to his injuries at.1.55.a.m on 12.8.1996. The claimants had registered FIR No.130 dated 12.8.1996 under Sections 279,427,304-A IPC at Police Station, Kotwali, Bathinda against Shiv Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their joint written statement and denied the manner in which the accident is alleged to have taken place, whereas respondent No.3 filed its separate written statement in which it was alleged that both the drivers of the jeep and the scooter were not having valid driving license at the time of accident. It was also alleged that deceased Gurmail Singh was driving the scooter under the influence of liquor, as a result of which he fell down and suffered injuries which resulted into his death. 5. The claimants filed the rejoinder to the written statements and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- i) Whether Gurmail Singh died in an accident involving Jeep No.PB-08H-3252 with Scooter No.PJS-3990 on 11.8.1996 on Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda ? 5. The claimants filed the rejoinder to the written statements and on the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- i) Whether Gurmail Singh died in an accident involving Jeep No.PB-08H-3252 with Scooter No.PJS-3990 on 11.8.1996 on Bibi Wala Road, Bathinda ? OPP ii) Whether Jeep No.PB-08H-3252 was being driven by Shiv Kumar in rash and negligent manner at the time of the accident took place ? OPP iii) Whether the claimants are dependents of Gurmail Singh deceased and are entitled to claim compensation. If so, and how much and from whom out of the respondents ? iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to recover any amount of interest. If so, at what rate ? OPP v) Whether the drivers of the Jeep and Scooter were having legal and valid licences at the time of accident ? OPR-3 vi) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner Scooter ? OPR-3 vii) Whether the claim petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondent No.1 and 2 ? OPR-3 viii) Relief: 6. Both the parties led their respective evidence. 7. In support of their claim petition, the claimant Chhinder Pal Kaur herself stepped into the witness box as AW-3 and examined Constable Gurmit Singh as AW-1; Constable Sahib Singh as AW-2; Constable Sarabjit Singh as AW-4 and also tendered into evidence copy of the FIR as Ex.A-4. 8. On the other hand, the respondents examined Dr. S.S.Mali as RW-1, Shiv Kumar Driver as RW-2 and tendered copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.R-1, bed head ticket as Ex R-2 and statement of Constable Sarabjit Singh as Ex. R-3. 9. The learned Tribunal discussed Issues No.1 and 2 together and held that statement of AW-4 Constable Sarabjit Singh is not reliable and decided them against the claimants and the claim petition was ultimately dismissed. 10. Aggrieved against the order of learned Tribunal, the present appeal was filed by the appellants/claimants in this Court which was admitted on 29.9.2006. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Tribunal has misread the evidence of PW-4 Constable Sarabjit Singh who had categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that he had seen the accident in the street light and reached the spot when he heard the noise of ‘Marditta’ ‘Marditta’ because it has been observed that he did not witness the accident and had only heard the cries of the deceased. On this premise, it was observed by the learned Tribunal that the witness (PW-4 Sarbjit Singh) was not present at the scene of accident. He has further submitted that the driver of the offending jeep was tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Bathinda in FIR No.130 dated 12.8.1996 registered under Sections 279,427,304-A of the IPC in which he has been convicted vide order dated 22.1.2000 and has been sentenced accordingly on the same date. It is, thus, submitted that once the Criminal Court has found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal should not have dismissed the claim petition by misreading the evidence of star witness AW-4. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Sukhinder Anand Vs. Khaza Vazir Ali (Minor) and others 1994 (2) ACJ 786, Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Lata and others Vs. Satbir and others, [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1169] : 2011 (3) SCC 646 and a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Girdhari Lal Vs. Radhey Shyam and others (1993-2) PLR 109. 12. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No-3 has submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition because the evidence of AW-4 Sarabjit Singh was not found trust-worthy. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 14. The accident is not disputed because Shiv Kumar driver of the offending vehicle has already been convicted and sentenced under Sections 279/304-A IPC by the learned Court below. 15. It is well settled that the standard of proof in a criminal case is more because the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the civil cases are decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. It is also pertinent to mention that while convicting the driver of the offending jeep, the learned Court has appreciated the statement of Constable Sarajbit Singh who had appeared as PW-2 but he has been disbelieved in the summary trial by the Tribunal when he appeared as AW-4 which is quite anamolous. 16. It is also pertinent to mention that while convicting the driver of the offending jeep, the learned Court has appreciated the statement of Constable Sarajbit Singh who had appeared as PW-2 but he has been disbelieved in the summary trial by the Tribunal when he appeared as AW-4 which is quite anamolous. 16. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, dated 07.2.2000 is hereby set aside and issues No. 1 and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of the claimants and it is held that the driver of the offending vehicle namely Jeep No. PB-08H- 3252 was rash and negligent at the time of the accident. Since the learned Tribunal has not decided the other issues in which the claimants have prayed for compensation, the matter is remanded back to it, to decide the other issues with regard to the amount of compensation and also the liability. 17. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda, on 14.2.2012. 18. The Registry of this Court is directed to return the record of this case forthwith. -------------------