JUDGMENT : A. S. Chandurkar, J. This appeal has been filed by the owner of vehicle bearing No.MP23-B-1960 that was stated to be involved in an accident resulting in the death of one Sopan so as to challenge the judgment of the Claims Tribunal awarding compensation for an amount of Rs.4,72,532/-. 2. The facts in brief are that according to respondent Nos.1 to 3, the husband of respondent No.1-Sopan was serving as a Peon in the Agricultural Office. On 28/05/2001 when he was standing on the roadside waiting for a bus, a car bearing No. MP-23-B-1960 gave a dash to him resulting in injuries. Said Sopan expired during the course of treatment hence his legal heirs filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the said Act). An amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was claimed as compensation. The claim was filed against the appellant herein on the ground that she was the owner of the offending vehicle. In the written statement as filed the appellant admitted that she was the owner of the said vehicle but denied that it was involved in any accident. It was further stated that the deceased was lying by the road in a drunken condition and his death did not occur on account of any motor accident. 3. The parties led evidence and the Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that the vehicle owned by the appellant was involved in the said accident. Accordingly, the claim petition was allowed and the appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,72,532/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Being aggrieved by that adjudication the present appeal has been filed. 4. Shri C. S. Kaptan, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant while challenging the judgment of the Claims Tribunal submitted that the evidence on record was insufficient to conclude that the vehicle owned by the appellant was involved in the accident. According to him for the said accident an offence was registered against the driver namely Shriram Wanare. The said offence resulted in a criminal case being Summary Criminal Case No.326/2001 in which the prosecution had examined one Brijpalsing Thakur as well as the Investigating Officer Anil Thakre. After considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution the criminal Court had proceeded to acquit the said driver for lack of evidence. The said offence resulted in a criminal case being Summary Criminal Case No.326/2001 in which the prosecution had examined one Brijpalsing Thakur as well as the Investigating Officer Anil Thakre. After considering the entire evidence led by the prosecution the criminal Court had proceeded to acquit the said driver for lack of evidence. It was submitted that in the present proceedings under the said Act, the deposition of said Brijpalsingh Thakur was recorded below Exhibit-97 in which he gave contrary statements. Referring to the deposition as recorded in the criminal proceedings it was sought to be uged that the contrary statements made in the present proceedings do not deserve to be accepted for holding the appellant liable. In the light of acquittal of the driver Shriram Wanare it was clear that the vehicle owned by the appellant was not involved in the said accident. According to him the claimants were not sure as to whether offending vehicle was a car or a jeep. He further referred to other documents on record to indicate the various discrepancies on record. Reliance was placed on the decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pansheela wd/o Indraraj Borkar and ors., (2018) 2 MhLJ 889 and it was submitted that no liability could have been saddled on the appellant since involvement of the offending vehicle was not proved. 5. On the other hand Shri R. S. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 3 supported the impugned judgment. According to him the judgment in the criminal case could not be referred to in the present proceedings in view of the fact that the nature of proof required in the civil proceedings and that required in the present proceedings was different. The present proceedings were required to be adjudicated on the basis of preponderance of probability while in the criminal proceedings there was a requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that accident in question took place at about 8.30 pm when it was dark and therefore it was quite possible that the description of the vehicle may have differed. He referred to the other papers placed on record by the Police Authorities which indicate that while said Brijpalsing Thakur was on patrolling duty he found the deceased lying in an injured condition as a result of accident being caused by being hit by the vehicle owned by the appellant. He referred to the other papers placed on record by the Police Authorities which indicate that while said Brijpalsing Thakur was on patrolling duty he found the deceased lying in an injured condition as a result of accident being caused by being hit by the vehicle owned by the appellant. There was no reason to falsely implicate either the driver or the owner of the vehicle and therefore acquittal of said driver would not result in dismissal of the claim petition. He also referred to the other evidence on record to indicate the possible view taken by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that no interference was called for. 6. The following point arises for adjudication : "Whether the appellant is liable to be exonerated from satisfying the award as passed by the Claims Tribunal ?" 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have also perused the records of the case. The claim for compensation was made on account of accidental death of Sopan. In the application it was pleaded that on 28/05/2001 when said Sopan was standing by the side of the road he was given a dash by the offending vehicle owned by the appellant herein. There were no eye witnesses to the said accident. The widow of the deceased examined herself at Exhibit-31. She placed on record various documents including certified copies of the First Information Report, Final Report Form, the form in respect of crime details and other police papers. It was admitted by her that she had not witnessed the accident. The owner of the offending vehicle examined herself at Exhibit-78. She admitted that criminal proceedings had been filed against the driver of the vehicle Shriram Wanare. The driver of the vehicle had not been examined. The other witness examined was one Sudarshan Chopde at Exhibit-84. He stated that he was the brother of Vijay Chopde whose field was adjoining the highway where the accident took place. At about 9.30 pm on 28/05/2001 he had come at the entrance of the said agricultural field where he saw a person lying on the road who had been injured in an accident. He however admitted that he was not a panch witness in the police case nor was his name mentioned in the charge-sheet as a witness. At about 9.30 pm on 28/05/2001 he had come at the entrance of the said agricultural field where he saw a person lying on the road who had been injured in an accident. He however admitted that he was not a panch witness in the police case nor was his name mentioned in the charge-sheet as a witness. He further admitted that he had not informed the incident to the police officer whom he had met. The owner of the vehicle also did not take him to any office to narrate the said incident. He also admitted that his evidence was not recorded in the criminal case as a defence witness. The owner also examined the Assistant Sub Inspector below Exhibit-97 who stated that between 8.30 pm to 9 pm on 28/05/2001 he was on anti-dacoity patrolling duty. When he reached the agricultural field of Chopde he found one person lying on the road and a jeep had run over the said person. Said information was communicated on wireless to the police station. Thereafter the police had come to the spot and had taken the injured for treatment. In his cross-examination he stated that he had personally seen the accident. The complaint was registered by one Assistant Police inspector A. D. Thakare. He further stated that his name was mentioned in charge-sheet as an eye witness. The accident was also witnessed by other police officials who were with him. His statement was recorded by the police authorities as a witness. Besides the oral evidence there is a documentary evidence on record in the form of First Information Report at Exhibit-32, Final Report Form at Exhibit-33, crime detail form at Exhibit-34 and the judgment in Summary Criminal Case No.326/2001 dated 03/08/2005 acquitting the accused driver Shriram Wanare. The said judgment is at Exhibit-54. At Exhibits-55 to 57 are the depositions of the witnesses examined in that criminal case. At Exhibit-79 is the driving license of the accused therein. 8. Since the principal ground of challenge raised on behalf of the appellant is based on acquittal of the driver in the criminal proceedings that were initiated pursuant to the said accident it would be necessary to refer to certain precedents in that regard. At Exhibit-79 is the driving license of the accused therein. 8. Since the principal ground of challenge raised on behalf of the appellant is based on acquittal of the driver in the criminal proceedings that were initiated pursuant to the said accident it would be necessary to refer to certain precedents in that regard. It is well settled that mere acquittal in the criminal proceedings would not have bearing on the application for grant of compensation under provisions of the said Act as the degree of proof required in the proceedings under the said Act is based on preponderance of probability. In N. K. V. Bros.(P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal and ors., (1980) ACJ 435 it was held that acquittal in the criminal case would not have bearing on the application for grant of compensation under Section 166 of the said Act. This view has been followed consistently thereafter. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation and anr. vs. Jarnail Singh and ors., (2009) ACJ 2807 it has been held that acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial would not have any bearing on the finding of negligence by the Claims Tribunal. In Vinobabai and ors. vs. K.S.R.T.C. and anr.,1979 ACJ 382 it has been observed that when the driver is convicted in a regular trial before the criminal Court, the fact that he has been convicted becomes admissible in evidence in a civil proceedings and it becomes prima facie evident that the driver was culpably negligent in causing the accident. However, the converse was not true in view of the fact that acquittal of the driver in a criminal case arising out of an accident would not establish even prima facie that the driver was not negligent as a higher degree of culpability is required to bring home an offence. That law has been reiterated in Mangla Ram vs. The Oriental Co. Ltd. And ors., (2018) 5 SCC 656 . After referring to various earlier decisions holding the field it was held by the Madras High Court in G. Suresh vs. Chellapandi and anr. (C.M.A. (MD) No.798 of 2009) decided on 18/06/2019 that the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case would have no bearing on the findings that are required to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 9. (C.M.A. (MD) No.798 of 2009) decided on 18/06/2019 that the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case would have no bearing on the findings that are required to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 9. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the learned Member of the Claims Tribunal has rightly observed that acquittal of the driver in the criminal proceedings as per the judgment at Exhibit-54 would be of no consequence and he has thereafter proceeded to taken into consideration the evidence of the Assistant Sub-Inspector for concluding that on account of the negligence of the driver of the vehicle owned by the appellant, the accident had been caused. It is found that this conclusion is based on evidence on record which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Member. By applying the test of preponderance of probabilities, the said finding is liable to be upheld. Though certain discrepancies were sought to be highlighted by the learned Senior Advocate in the evidence of said witness, I am not inclined to accept his contention that the driver was not at all negligent in causing the accident. The point as framed is accordingly answered by holding that the appellant is not liable to be exonerated from satisfying the award as passed by the Claims Tribunal. The decision relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant is clearly distinguishable of facts as in that case there was no evidence to identify the vehicle in question. In the present case such evidence is available and hence the decision relied upon does not support the contentions of the appellant. 10. The Claims Tribunal has proceeded to award an amount of Rs.4,72,532/- as compensation. There is no cross-objection seeking enhancement in that amount of compensation. Hence the award as passed by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be confirmed. Accordingly the judgment of the Claims Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.168/2011 dated 07/03/2008 stands confirmed. The First Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. The respondents-claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount of compensation with accrued interest in accordance with the award as passed.