JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 17th August, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,53,800/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till deposit, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with the liability, with right of recovery, (for short the “impugned award”). 2. Claimants, the driver and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, giving rise to the instant appeal, are that on 11th June, 2008, at about 2.45 p.m., Amrit Kumari, mother of the claimants, was walking on foot alongside the road at Dosarka, District Hamirpur, H.P. All of a sudden, said Amrit Kumari was run over by scooter bearing No.HP-22-7222, being driven rashly and negligently by original respondent No.2 Nishant Kumar, as a result of which Amrit Kumari sustained injuries, was taken to District Hospital, Hamirpur, from where she was referred to PGI Chandigarh where she remained admitted till 19th June, 2008. Ultimately, said Amrit Kumari succumbed to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, on 21st June, 2008. 4. The claimants, being the son and daughter of deceased Amrit Kumari, invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. Respondents contested the claim petition by filing replies. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal: “1.Whether the death of Smt. Amrit Kumari was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Scooter No.HP-22-7222 by respondent No.2, Nishant Kumar alias Pappu alias Chandan, as alleged? OPP 2. If Issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioners/claimants are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No.3, at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No.2 at the time of accident in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3 5. OPP 3. Whether the vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No.3, at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No.2 at the time of accident in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3 5. Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident? OPR-3 6. Relief.” 7. For proving their case, the parties led evidence. Claimants examined Dr. Sunita Galoda as PW-1, HC Vijay Parkash as PW-2, ASI Sohan Singh as PW-3, Subhash Chand as PW-4 and Chaman Lal as PW-5. One of the claimants, namely, Deepak Sharma also stepped into the witness box as PW-6. On the other hand, insured (appellant herein) appeared as RW-1, while the insurer examined RW-2 Harvinder Singh, an official from the office of DTO, Amritsar, Punjab. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, and the material on record, allowed the claim petition and saddled the insurer with the liability at the first instance, with right of recovery, on the ground that original respondent No.3 Nishant Kumar, who was driving the scooter at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 9. Feeling aggrieved, the insured has challenged the impugned award by the medium of instant appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 11. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/insured argued that, at the time of accident, Nishant Kumar had not driven the offending scooter and was not involved in the accident. Therefore, it was submitted that the Tribunal has fallen into an error in granting the claim petition. 12. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal shows that the Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the claimants have proved that Nishant Kumar was driving the offending scooter rashly and negligently, run over Amrit Kumari who was walking beside the road, sustained injuries, taken to the hospital, referred to PGI, Chandigarh and ultimately succumbed to the injuries. 13. Claimants have proved on record postmortem report as Ext.PW-1/A, wherein it was recorded that the deceased Amrit Kumari died because of anti-mortem head injury. 13. Claimants have proved on record postmortem report as Ext.PW-1/A, wherein it was recorded that the deceased Amrit Kumari died because of anti-mortem head injury. A further perusal of the record reveals that in regard to the accident, FIR bearing No.185/2008, dated 11th June, 2008, was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Hamirpur, H.P., which has been proved on record as Ext.PW-2/A and the final report, Ext.PW-3/A, in terms of Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, (for short, Cr.P.C.), came to be filed before the court of competent jurisdiction. 14. Having regard to the above discussion, I am of the considered view that there is sufficient evidence available on the record to hold that the claimants have proved that the accident had occurred because of the use of offending scooter, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Nishant Kumar was facing trial in criminal case, came to be acquitted and it was recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that Nishant Kumar had driven the scooter at the relevant point of time and the accident was the outcome of use of the offending scooter. The said judgment delivered in criminal case was not produced before the Tribunal, however, taken on record during the course of hearing, being a public document. 16. I have gone through the judgment, dated 17th January, 2012, passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Court No.III, Hamirpur, H.P., whereby the criminal proceedings launched against Nishant Kumar, had resulted into acquittal. It is worth while to note that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be made a ground to dismiss a claim petition since standards of proof in criminal cases, civil cases and claim petitions are altogether different. 17. In civil cases, proof of preponderance of probabilities is required, in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required and in summary proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short “the Act”, prima facie proof is required. 18. 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. 19. 18. 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. 19. 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. 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. 20. 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 2 of the said 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 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. 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” 21. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has correctly made the discussion and has rightly decided issue No.1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 22. In the impugned award, the Tribunal has categorically recorded that at the time of accident, Nishant Kumar was driving the offending scooter rashly and negligently and had caused the accident. The said Nishant Kumar had not questioned the impugned award by way of filing appeal. Therefore, question arises – Whether the owner can question the said findings in view of the fact that the driver has not challenged the same. Since the findings recorded by the Tribunal were against driver Nishant Kumar, it is not open for the appellant to challenge the said findings and urge before this Court that, at the time of accident, Nishant Kumar, driver, had not driven the offending scooter rashly and negligently. Accordingly, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected being devoid of any force. 23. Viewed thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are upheld. 24. Before issue No.2 is taken up, it is appropriate to determine Issues No.3 to 5. 25. Qua issue No.3, the onus was on the insurer to prove the said issue. The Tribunal has decided the said issue against the insurer, which findings have not been questioned by it. Accordingly, the same are upheld. 26. As far as issues No.4 and 5 are concerned, the onus to prove the said issues was on the insurer. The insurer has discharged the onus and, therefore, the said issues came to be rightly decided against the driver and the insured/appellant. The Tribunal has made discussion in paragraph 37 of the impugned award that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, which findings have not been questioned by the driver Nishant Kumar. Thus, the said findings merit to be upheld. The Tribunal has made discussion in paragraph 37 of the impugned award that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, which findings have not been questioned by the driver Nishant Kumar. Thus, the said findings merit to be upheld. A perusal of the statement of RW-2 Harvinder Singh, official from the office of DTO, Amritsar, and the document Ext.RW-2/A, shows that the driving licence No.57663/NDL was not issued by the DTO, Amritsar. 27. It was for the owner to plead and prove that he had handed over the scooter to Nishant Kumar after exercising due care and caution. It is important to note here that Nishant Kumar was the son of the insured, therefore, in all probabilities, the insured would have been knowing that Nishant Kumar was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 28. In view of the above, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the owner had committed willful breach. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issues No.4 and 5 are upheld. 29. Coming to issue No.2, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive is not tenable for the following reasons. It has been pleaded by the claimants that the deceased Amrit Kumari was a Nurse by profession, had served the Health Department and, at the time of accident, had retired from service and the deceased was drawing pension to the tune of Rs.5,253/- per month. It has been observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 26 of the impugned award that after the death of Amrit Kumari, the claimant Deepak Sharma was getting family pension to the tune of Rs.4,446/- per month out of the total pension of Rs.5,253/-. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no much financial loss suffered by the claimants. However, keeping in view the fact that the deceased was performing household services, the Tribunal held that the claimant Deepak Sharma suffered loss of domestic services due to the death of Amrit Kumari. Accordingly, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased Amrit Kumari at Rs.120/- per day i.e. Rs.3,600/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss suffered by the claimant was held to be Rs.2,400/-. The assessment made by the Tribunal appears to be correct and is accordingly upheld. 30. Accordingly, the Tribunal took the income of the deceased Amrit Kumari at Rs.120/- per day i.e. Rs.3,600/- per month. After deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the loss suffered by the claimant was held to be Rs.2,400/-. The assessment made by the Tribunal appears to be correct and is accordingly upheld. 30. It has been observed by the Tribunal in paragraph 28 of the impugned award that, as per the service record of the deceased, the deceased was 68 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal has fallen into an error in applying the multiplier of 10. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 , which decision was also upheld by the larger Bench of the Apex Court in Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, 2013 AIR (SCW) 3120 read with the 2nd Schedule attached with the Act, multiplier of 5 is applicable. 31. In view of the above, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.2400 x 12 x 5 = Rs.1,44,000/-. In addition, the claimants are also held entitled to Rs.10,000/- each, (i.e. Rs.40,000/-), under the heads ‘loss of love and affection’, ‘loss of consortium’, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral charges’. 32. Having glance of the above discussion, the claimants are held entitled to Rs.1,44,000/- + Rs.40,000/- = Rs.1,88,000/-, alongwith interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 33. The insurer is saddled with the liability, with right of recovery from the owner. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, along with interest, in the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, if not already deposited, and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimants forthwith, strictly in terms of the impugned award. The insurer is at liberty to lay motion for recovery of the amount from the owner/insured. 34. The impugned award is modified, as indicated above, and the appeal is disposed of.