ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. Appellant - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation') has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') to assail impugned judgment and award dated 02.07.1998, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Udaipur (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). By the judgment and award impugned, learned Tribunal has partly allowed claim petition of the first respondent under Section 166 of the Act and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident caused by the vehicle of Corporation. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that respondent-claimant laid a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,53,200/-, inter-alia, stating therein that on 23.05.1996, at about 9.40 P.M., he was travelling in Corporation Bus No. RJ 27/P-1460 from Jaswantgarh to Surat, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Claim Petition further unfurls that when a tanker coming behind made an attempt to overtake the bus, both the vehicles collided, resulting in grave and serious injuries to him. The matter was reported to police and after investigation, the police submitted negative final report in the matter against the bus Driver. For quantifying amount of compensation, the respondent-claimant has pleaded that at the time of accident, he was 25 years old earning Rs. 3,500/- per month. As per version of the respondent-claimant, the grave and serious injuries suffered by him forced him to remain bedridden for a considerable period and caused him in pecuniary loss. The nature of injuries and the treatment administered to the respondent-claimant are also mentioned in the claim petition with clarity and precision. 3. The claim petition is contested by appellant and all the allegations are refuted. The nature of injuries and the treatment administered to the respondent-claimant are also mentioned in the claim petition with clarity and precision. 3. The claim petition is contested by appellant and all the allegations are refuted. On the basis of the pleadings of the rival parties, learned Tribunal framed following issues for determination:- ^^1- vk;k fnukad 23]05]1996 dks foi{kh la[;k ,d lw;Zizdk'k ds }kjk cl la[;k vkj0 ts-@27ih0 dks xQyr] ykijokgh ls pykus ds dkj.k xksfoUn nq?kZVukxzLr gqvk vkSj mlds 'kjhj ij lk/kkj.k o xaHkhj pksVs vkbZ ftlds QyLo#i mlds LFkkbZ v;ksX;rk iSnk gqbZ \ ---------------izkFkhZ 2- vk;k izkFkhZ Dyse esa crkbZ jkf'k 3]53200@& #0 ;k vU; dksbZ jkf'k izfrdj es foi{khx.k ls ikus dk vf/kdkj gS] ;fn gka rks fdruh o fdl&fdl ls \ 3- vk;k foi{kh }kjk tokc esa mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij foi{khx.k dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha gS \ 4- vuqrks"k \** 4. Learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of evidence, decided Issue No.1 in favour of respondent-claimant and against the appellant-Corporation. Upon examining Issue No.2, in light of the evidence tendered by rival parties, learned Tribunal moderately assessed amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- on the basis of 10% permanent disability suffered by claimant. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned judgment and award and thoroughly scanned the record of case. 5. The only issue, which is sought to be raised by appellant, is that police has submitted negative final report in the matter, therefore, exonerated the driver of Corporation from commission of offence. In this behalf, suffice it to observe that in a claim petition, findings of criminal Court have no ramification and even if a competent criminal Court has acquitted the driver of an offending vehicle, still Tribunal can determine the issue relating to rash and negligent driving. It is also noteworthy that here in the instant case, as a matter of fact, police has submitted negative final report and no proceedings were undertaken before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, in such situations, the learned Tribunal has made sincere endeavour to analyze and appreciate the entire evidence objectively and independently which was available on record so as to castigate driver of the Corporation vehicle for rash and negligent driving. Therefore, in such situations, the learned Tribunal has made sincere endeavour to analyze and appreciate the entire evidence objectively and independently which was available on record so as to castigate driver of the Corporation vehicle for rash and negligent driving. The standard of proof, in a claim case, for determining rash and negligent driving is not akin to a criminal trial, inasmuch as, in criminal trial, proof beyond all reasonable doubts is necessary whereas in a claim case conclusions can be drawn even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. In this view of the matter, I am unable to find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1. 6. Now switching on to Issue No.2, it is observed that undeniably due to accident, respondent-claimant has suffered injuries including fractures and he remained bedridden for quite some time. Although, the respondent-claimant has projected an embellished version to claim exorbitant amount of compensation but then the learned Tribunal in all fairness has made endeavour to quantify the same commensurating with the injuries suffered by him. Learned Tribunal has moderately assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- which includes compensation to the respondent-claimant for pain and sufferings. 7. Therefore, in totality, I am unable to find any infirmity in the amount of compensation determined and awarded by the learned Tribunal. Resultantly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.