JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 30.12.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 66/05/05, titled Kamlesh Kumari and others versus Yashbir alias Jasbir Kumar and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.8,51,560/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants, by the medium of FAO No. 135 of 2010, have sought enhancement of compensation and State by the medium of FAOs No. 227 and 228 of 2010 have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeals. 3. It appears that the widow and children and parents of the deceased have filed separate claim petitions for the grant of compensation before the Tribunal. All the claim petitions were clubbed, decided together and compensation came to be granted. 4. The Tribunal held that the State has to satisfy the award. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the State has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with the liability and the accident has been caused by the driver of the Wagon-R private car and insured was to be saddled with the liability. 6. Mr. Pawan Gautam, Advocate, for the claimants argued that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in assessing the compensation and the compensation merits to be enhanced. 7. I am of the considered view that the appeal of the claimants is to be dismissed and the appeals of the State merit to be allowed, so far as it relates to quantum of compensation only and so far as fastening of the liability, the appeals of the State merits to be dismissed for the reasons that the driver namely, Subhash Chand was driving the vehicle rashly or negligently and the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was an employee of IPH Department and his gross salary was Rs.5635/- per month as is evident from Ext. PW2/A. The claimants are dependents, widow, daughters, sons and mother of the deceased. The deceased was an employee of IPH Department and his gross salary was Rs.5635/- per month as is evident from Ext. PW2/A. The claimants are dependents, widow, daughters, sons and mother of the deceased. 1/5th 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. 8. Thus, the claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4500/- per month roughly. The multiplier of “14” was applicable and rightly came to be applied by the Tribunal. 9. Accordingly, it is held that the claimants have lost the source of dependency to the tune of Rs.4500x12x14= Rs.7,56,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to compensation under the four 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/- (iv) Loss of consortium : Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.40,000/- Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs. 7,96,000 alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the impugned award being excessive is reduced as indicated hereinabove. 10. The question is-whether the Tribunal has rightly fastened the State with the liability? 11. The FIR was lodged against the driver Subhash Chand, who is an employee of State-Executive Engineer, IPH Department and challan has been presented against him in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Police has conducted the investigation which is agency of the State. The Tribunal has made discussion in paras 22 and 22 and held that driver Subhash Chand has driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident. 12. I have gone through the discussion made by the Tribunal. I am of the considered view that no interference is required. 13. At this stage, the learned Deputy Advocate General for the State stated that the driver has been acquitted of the charge. 14. 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. 14. 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. 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.” 15. In civil cases, proof of preponderance of probabilities is required and in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. 16. Many States are unjustly indifferent in this regard.” 15. In civil cases, proof of preponderance of probabilities is required and in criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required. 16. 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 Supreme Court Cases 646, and Oriental Insurance Co. versus Mst. Zarifa and others, reported in AIR 1995 Jammu and Kashmir 81. 17. 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. 18. Having said so, appeal filed by the State are partly allowed, the impugned award is modified as indicated hereinabove, and the appeal filed by the claimants is dismissed. 19. State is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from today, if not already deposited. 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 in their bank account. If the entire amount has been deposited by the State, the excess amount, if any, be refunded to the State. 20. All the appeals are accordingly, disposed of. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.