JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 23.4.2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1), Kangra, at Dharamshala, H.P. in MACP. (RBT) No. 100-P/II-2010/2007, titled Smt. Bhotto Devi versus Trilok Singh and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant came to be dismissed, however, Rs.50,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant and against respondents No. 1 to 3 under no fault liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Drivers/owners and insurers have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, the same has attained the finality so far as it relates to them. 3. The claimant being the victim of a vehicular accident has filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, which was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. “(i) Whether respondent No.2 drove HP -02-6494 rashly and negligently on 2.6.2006 and caused death of Mast Ram? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what compensation the petitioner is entitled for and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the scooter driver was rash and negligent and hit jeep No. HP-02-6494? OPR (iv) Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR (v) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven without valid and effective Registration certificate? OPR (vi) Relief.” 4. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of Sanjay Kumar, while driving Jeep No. HP-02-6494. 5. The issue to be determined in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No.1 The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 6. The insurer has filed the reply and has not specifically averred that driver Sanjay Kumar has not driven the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is averred that the owner has committed willful breach and driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 7. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have also filed the reply and have evasively denied the averments contained the claim petition. It is averred that the owner has committed willful breach and driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 7. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have also filed the reply and have evasively denied the averments contained the claim petition. They have taken a specific ground that Sanjay Kumar driver has not driven the vehicle rashly and negligently. It is beaten law of the land that evasive denial is admission in the eyes of law. 8. The claimant has examined HC Hari Ram as PW1, Kuldeep Chand as PW2 and claimant herself stepped into the witness-box as PW3. 9. Hari Ram PW1 has stated that the FIR was lodged against driver Sanjay Kumar which has resulted into the final report against him. 10. Kuldeep Chand is the witness of the spot. He has deposed that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident. There is no rebuttal to the evidence led by the claimant. Rather evidence led by the claimant has remained unrebutted. 11. Sanjay Kumar has placed on record certified copy of judgment rendered by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Palampur, District Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 132-II/2006 titled State of HP versus Sanjay Kumar, which was outcome of the said FIR under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, for short “the IPC.” The Trial Court, after discussing the evidence held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and entire prosecution story is shrouded in doubts. 12. It is beaten law of the land that in civil cases, proof of preponderance of probabilities is required, in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required and in summary proceeding petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short “the Act”, prima facie proof is required. 13. My this view is fortified by the judgment delivered by the apex court in Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 646 , and Oriental Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 Jammu and Kashmir 81. 14. This Court has also laid down the similar principles of law in FAO No. 692 of 2008 decided on 4.9.2015 titled Cholamandlan MS General Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 Jammu and Kashmir 81. 14. This Court has also laid down the similar principles of law in FAO No. 692 of 2008 decided on 4.9.2015 titled Cholamandlan MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Smt. Jamna Devi and others, FAO No. 287 of 2014 along with connected matter, decided on 18.9.2015 titled Tulsi Ram versus Smt. Mena Devi and others, FAO No. 72 of 2008 along with connected matter decided on 10.7.2015 titled Anil Kumar versus Nitim Kumar and others and FAO No. 174 of 2013 decided on 5.9.2014 titled Kusum Kumari versus M.D. U.P. Roadways and others. 15. It is also settled law that in criminal case acquittal of the driver cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. 16. The apex Court in case titled NKV Bros. (P) Ltd vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others reported in AIR 1980 SC 1354 held that in criminal case acquittal of the driver cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. It is apt to reproduce para 3 of the said judgment herein:- “3. Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the Courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other case, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The Court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. We are emphasissing this aspect because we are often distressed by transport operators getting away with it thanks to judicial laxity, despite the fact that they do not exercise sufficient disciplinary control over the drivers in the matter of careful driving. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour". Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parcimony practised by tribunals. The heavy economic impact of culpable driving of public transport must bring owner and driver to their responsibility to their "neighbour". Indeed, the State must seriously consider no-fault liability by legislation. A second aspect which pains us is the inadequacy of the compensation or undue parcimony practised by tribunals. We must remember that judicial tribunals are State organs and Art. 41 of the Constitution lays the jurisprudential foundation for state relief against accidental disablement of citizens. There is no justification for niggardliness in compensation. A third factor which is harrowing is the enormous delay in disposal of accident cases resulting in compensation, even if awarded, being postponed by several years. The States must appoint sufficient number of tribunals and the High Court should insist upon quick disposals so that the trauma and tragedy already sustained may not be magnified by the injustice of delayed justice. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.” 17. It is apt to record herein that the learned trial Court in acquittal judgment has recorded in para 14 that PW2 H.C. Dev Raj has deposed that accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by the driver and even he has denied the suggestion made by the learned defence counsel that accident was not outcome of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver but was due to the skidding of the scooter on the road due to rain. It is apt to reproduce para 14 of the said judgment herein. “14. PW2 H.C. Dev Raj testified on oath the manner in which he investigated the case. He also proved spot map Ext. PW2/B seizure memo Ext. PW2/C of scooter NO. HP-37-5893, Ext. PW2/D through which documents of jeep was seized. He also proved photographs Ext. PW2/E1 to E3 with negatives Ext. PW2/E4 to E6. He also proved photographs Ext. OW2/F1 to F3 with negatives Ext. PW2/F4 toF6.Postmortem report Ext. PB. In cross examination, he denied suggestion of defence that it had come in investigation that the scooter skied on the road due to rain and the accident did not occur due to the negligence driving of accused.” 18. Having said so, the claimant has prima facie proved that Sanjay Kumar driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the scooter in which deceased sustained the injuries and succumbed to the same. Having said so, the claimant has prima facie proved that Sanjay Kumar driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the scooter in which deceased sustained the injuries and succumbed to the same. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are set aside and issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the claimant and against the respondents. 19. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5 at the first instance. Issues No. 3 to 5. 20. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus on these issues, has not led any evidence, thus failed to discharge the onus. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. Issue No.2. 21. The deceased was a bachelor and 21 years of age at the time of accident. Worse comes to worst a labourer would have been earning not less than 4000/- per month. Thus, by taking the deceased as a labourer, it is held that the deceased was earning Rs.4000/- per month at the time of accident and one half was to be deducted keeping in view the 2nd Schedule attached to the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 22. Having said so, the claimant has lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2000/- per month roughly. The multiplier of “15” is applicable and is applied accordingly. 23. Accordingly, it is held that the claimant has lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs.2000x12x15= Rs.3,60,000/-. The claimant is also entitled to compensation under the three heads as under:- (i) Loss of love and affection: Rs.10,000/- (ii) Loss of estate : Rs.10,000/- (iii) Funeral expenses : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.30,000/- Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,90,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till is realization. 24. Viewed thus, the impugned award is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the claimant is granted compensation, as indicated hereinabove. 25. The insurer is saddled with the liability and is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. 24. Viewed thus, the impugned award is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the claimant is granted compensation, as indicated hereinabove. 25. The insurer is saddled with the liability and is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. On deposit, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same in her bank account. 26. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.