JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject mater of this appeal is the award, dated 10th November, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 91-K/II-2004, titled Shri Surinder Kumar versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant, in lump sum and the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘HRTC’) was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned award”). 2. The appellant, i.e. claimant-injured had filed claim petition before the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘the Act’, for grant of compensation to the tune of 9,80,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by theTribunal:- “1. Whether on 23.2.2004 the respondent No. 2 was driving bus No. HP-38-2481 rashly and negligently and had struck against the motor cycle No. HP-39A-2658 being driven by petitioner, resulting in injuries to the petitioner as alleged?….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? …OP Parties. 3. Whether the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of petitioner and is liable for the accident as alleged? …OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as alleged?…OPR 5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present petition as alleged? …OPR 6. Relief.” 5. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the claimant, in lump sum. 6. HRTC and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 7. The question of rashness and negligence and the factum that the claimant became victim of the accident, are not in dispute. 8. However, the respondents have filed cross objections for setting aside the impugned award, are not maintainable. Hence, dismissed 9. I have gone through the entire record. 10. 7. The question of rashness and negligence and the factum that the claimant became victim of the accident, are not in dispute. 8. However, the respondents have filed cross objections for setting aside the impugned award, are not maintainable. Hence, dismissed 9. I have gone through the entire record. 10. The claimants have proved by leading evidence that on 23.02.2004, at about 4.00 p.m., near Village Chambi, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, driver, namely, Arjun Singh has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, caused the accident, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. 11. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the driver was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala, vide judgment dated 26.08.2006 in Criminal Case No. 15-II/2004 and treating the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘the Act’. It appears that the Presiding Officer is not aware of the basic provisions of the Act and the purpose of granting compensation. 12. My this view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Amm Ammal and others etc., al reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354 wherein a bus hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties. The driver earned acquittal in the criminal case on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of God. The Apex Court held that the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of the judgment herein: “2. The Facts: A stage carriage belonging to the petitioner was on a trip when, after nightfall, the bus hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties of which 8 proved instantaneously fatal. A criminal case ensued but the accused-driver was acquitted on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of God. The Accidents Claims Tribunal which tried the claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, came to the conclusion, affirmed by the High Court, that, despite the screams of the passengers about the dangerous overhanging wire ahead, the rash driver sped towards the lethal spot. Some lost their lives instantly; several lost their limbs likewise. The Accidents Claims Tribunal which tried the claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, came to the conclusion, affirmed by the High Court, that, despite the screams of the passengers about the dangerous overhanging wire ahead, the rash driver sped towards the lethal spot. Some lost their lives instantly; several lost their limbs likewise. The High Court, after examining the materials, concluded: "We therefore sustain the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had taken place due to the rashness and negligence of R. W. 1 (driver) and consequently the appellant is vicariously liable to pay compensation to the claimant." The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirements of culpable rashness under Section 304A, I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The quantum of compensation was moderately fixed and although there was, perhaps, a case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to re-open the holdings on culpability and compensation.” 13. It is also profitable to reproduce relevant portion of para 8 of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in a case titled Vinobabai and others versus K.S.R.T.C. and another, reported in 1979 ACJ 282: “ 8. ......................... Thus, the law is settled that when the driver is convicted in a regular trial before the Criminal Court, the fact that he is convicted becomes admissible in evidence in a civil proceeding and it becomes prima facie evidence that the driver was culpably negligent in causing the accident. The converse is not true; because the driver is acquitted in a criminal case arising out of the accident, it is not established even prima facie that the driver is not negligent, as a higher degree of culpability is required to bring home an offence.” 14. Reliance is also placed on the judgment made by this Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another versus Jarnail Singh and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 174, wherein it has been held that acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whether the driver was negligent or not in causing the accident. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 15 of the judgment herein: “15. In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments cited hereinabove, it is now well settled law that the acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whether the driver was negligence or not in causing the accident. ................” 15. This Court in FAO No. 274 of 2008 2008, titled Divisional Engineer Telecom Project (BSNL) & another versus Shri Chet Ram & another another, decided on 29th May, 2015, has held that if the driver is acquitted in the criminal proceedings, that may not be a ground for dismissal of the claim petitions. 16. It view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments, it is held that claim petition is maintainable under Section 166 of the Act. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant. 17. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 5. 18. The onus to prove these issues was upon the respondents. 19. However, I have gone through the evidence. Issue No. 3 is dependant upon issue No. 1. In view of the findings recorded on Issue No. 1, supra, Issue No. 3 is decided accordingly in favour of the claimant. 20 Respondents have not led any evidence on issues No. 4 & 5. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 4 & 5 are upheld. 21. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the claimant in lump sum, which is not just and appropriate compensation for the following reasons. 22. The claimant-injured was 49 years of age at the time of accident. He suffered 43% disability, which has shattered his physical frame. His salary was Rs. 10,500/- at the time of accident. After retiring from the service, he would be dependent upon others due to his disability and will not be in a position to get reemployment. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2500/- per month. 23. His salary was Rs. 10,500/- at the time of accident. After retiring from the service, he would be dependent upon others due to his disability and will not be in a position to get reemployment. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 2500/- per month. 23. Keeping in view the ratio laid down by the apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another another, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 read with Reshma Kumari & others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 the multiplier of ‘6’ is applicable in this case. Accordingly, it is held that claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 2500 x 12 = 30,000/- x 6 = Rs. 1,80,000/- under the head ‘loss of income’. 24. The claimant is entitled to Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferings’, which he has suffered and has to suffer through out and Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 25. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/- + 50,000/- + 50,000/-, total amounting to Rs.2,80,000/-. 26. Having said so, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 27. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount before the Registry within six weeks from today. 28. The Registry to release the amount already deposited and, on deposit, release the enhanced amount, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, in favour of the claimant, through payee's account cheque. 29. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.