Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 1st August, 2014, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short, the Tribunal), in MAC Petition No.5/13/2010, titled Virender Singh and others vs. HRTC and others, whereby the Claim Petition came to be dismissed, on the ground that the claimants have failed to prove that respondent No.3 (driver of the offending bus) was driving the offending bus, at the relevant point of time, in a rash and negligent manner. 2. I have gone through the Claim Petition and the impugned award, a perusal whereof shows that FIR No.167 of 2009 was registered in Police Station Baijnath, under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.3 i.e. the driver of the offending bus and final report i.e. challan was presented before the Magistrate, which resulted in the acquittal of the driver/respondent No.3. The Tribunal also took into consideration the said judgment of acquittal. 3. It is beaten law of the land that acquittal earned in the criminal case cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. The standard of proof in a criminal case and claim petition is altogether different. In a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In a claim petition, the claimants are not required to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt, but by preponderance of probability. 4. My this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in case titled Dulcina Fernandes & Ors. Versus Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6014, wherein it has been held that the issue of negligence was required to be decided by the Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pick-up van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt. [Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2819 : 2009 AIR SCW 4298)]. [Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal RTC (2009) 13 SCC 530 : ( AIR 2009 SC 2819 : 2009 AIR SCW 4298)]. In United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shila Datta & Ors. (2011) 10 SCC 509 : ( AIR 2012 SC 86 : 2011 AIR SCW 6541) while considering the nature of a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a three-judge-bench of this Court has culled out certain propositions of which propositions (ii), (v) and (vi) would be relevant to the facts of the present case and, therefore, may be extracted hereinbelow: “(ii) The rules of the pleadings do not strictly apply as the claimant is required to make an application in a form prescribed under the Act. In fact, there is no pleading where the proceedings are suo motu initiated by the Tribunal. (v) Though the Tribunal adjudicates on a claim and determines the compensation, it does not do so as in an adversarial litigation. (vi) The Tribunal is required to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. It may choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of and matters relevant to inquiry, to assist it in holding the enquiry.” The following further observation available in paragraph 10 of the report would require specific note: “We have referred to the aforesaid provisions to show that an award by the Tribunal cannot be seen as an adversarial adjudication between the litigating parties to a dispute, but a statutory determination of compensation on the occurrence of an accident, after due enquiry, in accordance with the statute." 5. In the present case, the driver of the offending bus (respondent No.3) stepped into the witness box as RW-3 and stated that on the fateful day, he had parked the offending bus at the bus stand and when he started the bus, he heard some noise of dashing someone with the bus on its rear, resulting into injuries to the deceased, who lateron succumbed to the same. This aspect has not been thrashed out by the Tribunal. 6. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 10 and 15 of the impugned award herein: “10. This aspect has not been thrashed out by the Tribunal. 6. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 10 and 15 of the impugned award herein: “10. In order to prove their plea, the petitioner Virender Singh has stepped into the witness box as PW-4 and has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ext.PW4/A in which he has reiterated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus in question by respondent No.3 who started reversing the bus in question on the relevant date and time at bus stand without blowing any horn in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased who was standing at bus stand and was waiting for a bus due to which the deceased was crushed and she immediately died at the spot on account of the injuries sustained by her. However, in his cross-examination, he has stated that the accident has taken place at bus stand Baijnath and he was not present at the spot at the time of the accident and the accident has not taken place in his presence. He has further stated that he came to know about the accident from one Pinki Devi who is inhabitant of his village and it is thereafter that he went to Civil Hospital, Baijnath where the deceased was declared dead by the Medical Officer. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 15. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has stepped into the witness box as RW-3 and has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW1/A in which he has stated that he was driver of the bus in question on the relevant date and time which was parked at bus stand Baijnath and besides the bus in question other buses were also parked there and thereafter the driver of bus No.HP-53-0812 which was also parked there requested him to take his bus back as he was to take his bus out of the bus stand, at which he started his bus but in the meantime the passengers rushed towards the bus in question and he heard some noise that some one had struck with the rear portion of the bus and fell down, at which he came out of the bus and saw the deceased lying on the ground and she has died. He is specific that he was not driving the bus at the time of the accident but the deceased died due to her own negligence who struck against the stationary bus when the passengers at the bus stand rushed towards the bus in question and fell down and sustained injuries in the process. He was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners, but nothing contrary could be elicited in his cross-examination. He has denied that he was reversing the bus in question without blowing any horn in a rash and negligent manner at the relevant time. He has stated that there were private buses parked on both side of his bus and reiterated that he was asked by the driver of the private bus to take the bus in question back. He has again reiterated that he has not reversed the bus but only started the engine of the bus. He has denied that he was reversing the bus without blow any horn in a rash and negligent manner due to which the bus hit the deceased who was standing there causing injuries to her which resulted into her death. Though, he has admitted that a criminal case was registered against him but he has stated that he has been acquitted in the same case. Thus, the respondent No.3 has fully corroborated/supported the plea of the respondents that the accident took place due to the negligence of the deceased and he was not driving the bus in question in a rash and negligent manner.” 7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has fallen in an error. Therefore, the impugned award is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal below with a direction to provide opportunity to the claimants to lead further evidence in support of their case and also to the respondents to lead evidence in rebuttal. The Tribunal is directed to conclude the trial and decide the Claim Petition within six months from today. 8. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2nd March, 2015. The Registry is directed to send down the records forthwith, alongwith a copy of this judgment. 9. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending CMPs, if any.