JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09/07/2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1), Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in 89-MAC/2 of 2008, titled Smt. Prem Lata and another versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants came to be partly allowed and Rs.50,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and against respondents No.1 and 2, under no fault liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and driver 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 claimants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The claimants being the victims of a vehicular accident had filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation on account death of Rahul Panwar, who was working as a teacher/tutor and farmer, earning Rs.8750/- per month, was coming from the side of Ambwala to Nahan on Scooter No. HP-18-1338 and was driving it on his own side of the road. The bus bearing registration No. HP-18-B- 7509, owned by respondent No.1, i.e., Himachal Road Transport Corporation, hit the said scooter due to rash and negligent driving by its driver Abdulla Khan respondent No.2, due to which the deceased sustained the injuries and succumbed to the injuries. FIR No.247 dated 26.11.2006 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A Indian Penal Code at police Station Nahan against the bus driver. Thus, the claimants had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. “(i) Whether Rahul Panwar died due to rash or negligent driving of bus No. HP-18B-7509 by respondent No.2 Abdulla Khan on 26.11.2006 near Gosadan, Ambwala, as alleged? OPP. (ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the previous petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, as alleged? OPR. (iv) Relief. 6. OPP. (ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the previous petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, as alleged? OPR. (iv) Relief. 6. The claimants have examined PW1 Hussan Lal, PW3 Yogesh Kumar and claimant No. 2 Rohit Panwar himself stepped into the witness-box as PW2. 7. On the other hand, respondents have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted. 8. While going through the FIR Ext. PW2/B and post-mortem report Ext. PW1/A, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that there is prima facie proof that driver Abdulla Khan has driven the HRTC bus rashly and negligently. FIR was lodged against him, which has resulted into the final report, in terms of the Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of competent jurisdiction, is suggestive of the fact that Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by Abdulla Khan driver of HRTC bus, who faced trial and came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 29.11.2008 passed in Cr. Case No. 33/2 of 2007. 9. Record of the criminal case was sent for. The Trial Court in para 35 of the judgment has recorded that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are not established on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Meaning thereby case of the prosecution was shrouded in doubts, is not a clear cut case of acquittal. It is apt to reproduce para 35 of the judgment herein. “35.In the case in hand, both the aforesaid eye witnesses have attributed the cause of accident to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceased. Thus, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are not established on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.” 10. A copy of the said judgment is made part of this file also. 11. Thus, the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are not established on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.” 10. A copy of the said judgment is made part of this file also. 11. 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 proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for short “the Act”, prima facie proof is required. 12. 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. 13. 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. Beena 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. 14. It is also settled law that in criminal case acquittal of the driver cannot be a ground to dismiss the claim petition. 15. 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 paras 2 and 3 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 overhanging 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. 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. Being questions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to re-open the holdings on culpability and compensation. 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 emphasis sing 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. 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.” 16. The claimants have discharged the onus by proving the FIR, post-mortem report and affidavit of Rohit Panwar. The evidence of one of the independent witness Yogesh Kumar who was examined by the claimants have remained un-rebutted but the Tribunal has fallen in an error in appreciating his statement in view of the contradictions here and there as contained in para 14 of the impugned award. 17. I have gone through his statement. He has categorically stated that the driver Abdulla Khan has driven the HRTC bus rashly and negligently and accident has taken place because of his negligence. The respondents have not led any evidence to the contrary. Said Abdulla Khan has not questioned the impugned award, though he has contested the claim petition. Thus, I am of the considered view that there is prima facie proof that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of driver Abdulla Khan of HRTC bus. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 are set aside and the issue is decided in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 18. Before I deal with issue No.2 I deem it proper to deal with issue No.3. The Tribunal has decided issue No.3 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents, have not questioned the said findings by filing appeal or cross objections. Thus, it has attained the finality so far as it relates to them. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. The Tribunal has decided issue No.3 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents, have not questioned the said findings by filing appeal or cross objections. Thus, it has attained the finality so far as it relates to them. Accordingly, the findings returned on this issue are upheld. Issue No. 2. 19. The Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- on account of no fault liability in favour of the claimants. The claimants are entitled to compensation for the following reasons. 20. The deceased was son of claimant No.1 and brother of claimant No.2, was a bachelor at the time of accident. Claimants have specifically pleaded that he was teacher/tutor and was earning Rs.8750/- per month, have placed on record salary certificate Ext. PW2/D which does disclose that the deceased was drawing salary of Rs.3750/- per month, Rs. 4000/- per month roughly. 21. As per record, the deceased was a bachelor and 23 years of age at the time of accident. One half was to be deducted towards his personal expenses, while 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. The multiplier of “15” is applicable and is applied accordingly, in view of the judgments referred to supra. 22. Having said so, it is held that the claimants have 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 claimants are entitled to Rs.3,90,000/-, including the amount of Rs.50,000/-, already granted by the Tribunal, on account of no fault liability, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till is realization. 23. Viewed thus, the impugned award is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the claimants are granted compensation, as indicated hereinabove. 24. The HRTC is directed to satisfy the award and is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today. 23. Viewed thus, the impugned award is set aside, the appeal is allowed and the claimants are granted compensation, as indicated hereinabove. 24. The HRTC is directed to satisfy the award 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 claimants, through payees’ cheque account or by depositing the same their bank accounts, in 60:40 ratio, i.e. 60% of the amount be released in favour of claimant No. 1 and 40% be released in favour of claimant No.2. 25. Send down the record, along with record of Criminal Case No. 33/2 of 2007, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.