Judgment : 1. In the accident, which occurred on 17.04.2000, one Sivakumar died. A case in Crime No.123 of 2000 has been registered against the driver of the State Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-35N-0785, on the file of TIW(West) Police Station. According to the legal representatives, wife and parents, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged 27 years and as a Computer Operator, earned Rs.4,000/- per month. They claimed compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 2. It is the contention of the claimants that on 17.04.2000, about 03.10.PM, when the deceased was riding a motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-37R-5889, near Anna Tea Coffee Bar on Oppanakara Street, from South to North direction, the abovesaid Transport Corporation bus, bearing Registration No.TN-35N-0785, driven in a rash and negligent manner, by its driver, dashed against the motor cyclist. The bus ran over his head and he died on the spot. 3. Opposing the claim, the Transport Corporation has contended that on that day, it was raining heavily. The bus was stopped at Oppanakara Street first bus stop. Due to rain, the road was full of dust and sand. At that time, the motor cyclist overtook a bus, lost his balance, fell down and became unconscious. Thus, they denied the manner of accident. Transport Corporation rebutted negligence attributed against its driver and their consequential liability to pay compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, avocation, income and the quantum of compensation claimed under various heads. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, father of the deceased examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the manner of accident. PW2 is the brother of the deceased and stated to be an eye witness. PW3 is an employee of Sivasankar Publications, in which the deceased was stated to have worked as a Computer Operator. Ex.P.1-First Information Report, Ex.P.2-Charge sheet, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4-Motor Vehicle Inspector's Reports, Ex.P.5-Rough Sketch, Ex.P.6-Post-mortem Report, Ex.P.7-Legal Heirship Certificate, Ex.P.8-School Leaving Certificate, Ex.P.9-Driving License, Ex.P.10-Salary Certificate and Ex.P.11-Day Book of Sivasankar Publications have been marked. RW1 is the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. Ex.R.1 is the copy of Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VIII, Coimbatore, in which the driver of the bus has been acquitted on benefit of doubt. 5. RW1 is the driver of the Transport Corporation bus. Ex.R.1 is the copy of Judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VIII, Coimbatore, in which the driver of the bus has been acquitted on benefit of doubt. 5. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to a conclusion that the accident occurred only due to negligence of RW1, driver of the State Transport Corporation bus and quantified the compensation due and payable to the respondents/ claimants as Rs.5,76,000/- with interest @9% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. 6. Being aggrieved by the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the bus, bearing Registration No.TN-35N-0785 and the quantum of compensation, the present appeal has been filed. Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in fixing the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, without any proof. It is also his contention that the Claims Tribunal erred in applying 18' multiplier, for computing the loss of contribution to the family. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered that the driver of the bus was acquitted of all the charges and hence, liability ought not to have been fastened on the Company, this Court is not inclined to accept the said submission, for the reason that the oral testimony of PW1, father of the deceased is duly supported by PW2, eye witness and also corroborated by Ex.P.1-First Information Report and Ex.P.2-Charge Sheet. 7. Perusal of the award further shows that RW1, driver of the bus has been acquitted solely on the basis of benefit of doubt. Strict proof of evidence is not required like that of a criminal case. It is also well settled that adjudication of claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is summary in nature. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to extract few paragraphs from the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Apex Court has drawn the distinction between criminal negligence and negligence in tort;- a civil liability. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab reported in 2005 (4) CTC 540, at Paragraphs 10, 11, 27 and 48(1), the Supreme Court held as follows: “10. The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. Eminent jurists and leading judgments have assigned various meanings to negligence. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab reported in 2005 (4) CTC 540, at Paragraphs 10, 11, 27 and 48(1), the Supreme Court held as follows: “10. The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. Eminent jurists and leading judgments have assigned various meanings to negligence. The concept as has been acceptable to Indian jurisprudential thought is well-stated in the Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (Twenty-fourth Edition 2002, edited by Justice G.P. Singh). It is stated (at p.441-442)-"Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property. The definition involves three constituents of negligence: (1) A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of the duty; (2) breach of the said duty; and (3) consequential damage. Cause of action for negligence arises only when damage occurs; for, damage is a necessary ingredient of this tort." 11. According to Charlesworth & Percy on Negligence (Tenth Edition, 2001), in current forensic speech, negligence has three meanings. They are: (i) a state of mind, in which it is opposed to intention; (ii) careless conduct; and (iii) the breach of duty to take care that is imposed by either common or statute law. All three meanings are applicable in different circumstances but any one of them does not necessarily exclude the other meanings. (Para 1.01) The essential components of negligence, as recognized, are three: "duty", "breach" and "resulting damage", that is to say :- 1. the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; 2. the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty; and 3. damage, which is both causally connected with such breach and recognized by the law, has been suffered by the complainant. the existence of a duty to take care, which is owed by the defendant to the complainant; 2. the failure to attain that standard of care, prescribed by the law, thereby committing a breach of such duty; and 3. damage, which is both causally connected with such breach and recognized by the law, has been suffered by the complainant. (Para 1.23) If the claimant satisfies the court on the evidence that these three ingredients are made out, the defendant should be held liable in negligence. (Para 1.24) 27. Res ipsa loquitur is a rule of evidence which in reality belongs to the law of torts. Inference as to negligence may be drawn from proved circumstances by applying the rule if the cause of the accident is unknown and no reasonable explanation as to the cause is coming forth from the defendant. In criminal proceedings, the burden of proving negligence as an essential ingredient of the offence lies on the prosecution. Such ingredient cannot be said to have been proved or made out by resorting to the said rule (See Syad Kabar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 ). Incidentally, it may be noted that in Krishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerla (1996) 10 SCC 508 , the Court has observed that there may be a case where the proved facts would themselves speak of sharing of common intention and while making such observation one of the learned judges constituting the Bench has in his concurring opinion merely stated "res ipsa loquitur'. Nowhere it has been stated that the rule has applicability in a criminal case and an inference as to an essential ingredient of an offence can be found proved by resorting to the said rule. In our opinion, a case under Section 304A IPC cannot be decided solely by applying the rule of res ipsa loquitur. 48. We sum up our conclusions as under :- (1) Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. The definition of negligence as given in Law of Torts, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal (edited by Justice G.P. Singh), referred to hereinabove, holds good. Negligence becomes actionable on account of injury resulting from the act or omission amounting to negligence attributable to the person sued. The essential components of negligence are three: 'duty', 'breach' and 'resulting damage'." In the above reported judgment, at Paragraphs 13 to 17, the Apex Court explained the difference between the tort and crime, as follows: “13. The moral culpability of recklessness is not located in a desire to cause harm. It resides in the proximity of the reckless state of mind to the state of mind present when there is an intention to cause harm. There is, in other words, a disregard for the possible consequences. The consequences entailed in the risk may not be wanted, and indeed the actor may hope that they do not occur, but this hope nevertheless fails to inhibit the taking of the risk. Certain types of violation, called optimizing violations, may be motivated by thrill-seeking. These are clearly reckless. 14. In order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent. The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such an act with recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Lord Atkin in his speech in Andrews v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1937] A.C. 576, stated, "Simple lack of care such as will constitute civil liability is not enough; for purposes of the criminal law there are degrees of negligence; and a very high degree of negligence is required to be proved before the felony is established." Thus, a clear distinction exists between "simple lack of care" incurring civil liability and "very high degree of negligence" which is required in criminal cases. Lord Porter said in his speech in the same case- "A higher degree of negligence has always been demanded in order to establish a criminal offence than is sufficient to create civil liability. (Charlesworth & Percy, ibid, Para 1.13) 15. Lord Porter said in his speech in the same case- "A higher degree of negligence has always been demanded in order to establish a criminal offence than is sufficient to create civil liability. (Charlesworth & Percy, ibid, Para 1.13) 15. The fore-quoted statement of law in Andrews has been noted with approval by this Court in Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 . The Supreme Court has dealt with and pointed out with reasons the distinction between negligence in civil law and in criminal law. Their Lordships have opined that there is a marked difference as to the effect of evidence, viz. the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the Court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt. Where negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence, the negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment. 16. Law laid down by Straight, J. in the case Reg v. Idu Beg (1881) 3 All. 776, has been held good in cases and noticed in Bhalchandra Waman Pathe v. State of Maharashtra 1968 Mh.L.J. 423, a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court. It has been held that while negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. 17. In our opinion, the factor of grossness or degree does assume significance while drawing distinction in negligence actionable in tort and negligence punishable as a crime. 17. In our opinion, the factor of grossness or degree does assume significance while drawing distinction in negligence actionable in tort and negligence punishable as a crime. To be latter, the negligence has to be gross or of a very high degree.” Factum of mens rea is not required to be decided in Motor Accidents Claims Cases, which is purely a civil liability on the driver/owner or the insurer, as the case may be to pay compensation to the injured or the legal representatives of the deceased. 8. Though RW.1, driver of the bus, has given contra evidence, no independent witness has been examined to support his version. Though Ex.R.1-Judgement of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore, has been marked, mere acquittal does not lead to an inference that there was no negligence on the part of RW.1, driver of the bus. Needless to say that in Motor Accident Claims Cases, preponderance of probability is the test to arrive at the conclusion regarding negligence. The standard of proof required is entirely different from the Criminal Court. At this juncture, it is also useful to extract the observations of a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. K.Balasubramanian reported in 2007 (2) TN MAC 399, wherein, this Court held as follows: "It is a well settled proposition of law that the judgments of the Criminal Courts are neither binding on the Civil Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal no relevant in a Civil Case or a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, except for the limited purpose of showing that there was a criminal prosecution which ended in conviction or acquittal. But there is an exception to the general rule. When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted based on his admission, the judgment of the Criminal Court becomes admissible and relevant in Civil proceedings and proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the Criminal Court, but as a document containing an admission. Of Course, admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted therein. Of Course, admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted therein. But unless and until they are proved to be incorrect or false by the person against whom the admissions are sought to be used as evidence, the same shall be the best piece of evidence." Testing the finding of negligence recorded by the Claims Tribunal, on the abovesaid principles, this Court is of the view that there is no perversity or it is a case of no evidence. For the reasons stated supra, the finding regarding negligence is confirmed. Quantum of compensation has been properly computed, having regard to the oral testimony of PW3 and other documents stated supra. No interference is called for on the finding of negligence and the quantum of compensation. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant-Transport Corporation is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, if not deposited earlier, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.996 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) Coimbatore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the share apportioned to them with proportionate accrued interest and costs, by making necessary applications.