JUDGMENT : The appellant is owner of Indica car No.HP-01A0332. This car met with an accident on 21.02.2008 that also involved a truck bearing No. HP-20-7785. The accident resulted in causing injuries to one Bhushan Kumar Sharma. He filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) vide its award dated 20.12.2013 allowed compensation of Rs.3,85,472/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount in favour of the claimant. The liability to satisfy the awarded amount was fastened upon the owner and driver of the car. Feeling aggrieved, owner of the car has preferred instant appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has advanced submissions on the following main points: - (i) The findings of the learned Tribunal that accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by appellant’s driver Shyam Lal (respondent No.9), is contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.7. (ii) Even if it is held that the accident was caused because of negligent driving by respondent No.9 then also the liability to pay the awarded compensation amount should have been fastened upon respondent No.2- Insurance Company (the insurer of Indica car). 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have also seen the record. For convenience, the above two main points, around which learned counsel for the parties made their submissions, are being discussed separately hereinafter. 4. Point No.1: Issue of negligence The relevant facts may first be noticed. 4(i)(a) On 21.02.2008, the claimant was travelling in Tata Indica car No.HP-01A-0332 and going from Mandi to Indore. This vehicle was being driven by respondent No.9. The appellant was the owner of this vehicle. Near ‘Kawari Dhank’, District Mandi, this vehicle struck against a truck No. HP-20- 7785, being driven by Satpal Singh (respondent No.7). The accident resulted in giving multiple injuries to claimant Bhushan Kumar Sharma. He remained admitted in Zonal Hospital Mandi, PGI Chandigarh and Fortis Hospital Chandigarh. He also received treatment from Harihar Hospital Mandi and Kullu Valley Hospital, District Kullu, H.P. On 12.04.2010, Bhushan Kumar instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest. He remained admitted in Zonal Hospital Mandi, PGI Chandigarh and Fortis Hospital Chandigarh. He also received treatment from Harihar Hospital Mandi and Kullu Valley Hospital, District Kullu, H.P. On 12.04.2010, Bhushan Kumar instituted claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest. The learned Tribunal vide its award dated 20.12.2013 held that the accident in question was caused because of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.9 i.e. driver of car, owned by the appellant. The payable compensation to the claimant was worked out at Rs.3,85,472/- alongwith interest @7.5% per annum. 4(i)(b) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal regarding accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9 was contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. It was argued that the claimant had specifically averred in para-24 of the claim petition about the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.7. Once the claimant had himself pleaded negligent driving of the truck by respondent No.7 as cause of the accident learned Tribunal could not have returned findings that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9. It was also submitted that Satpal (respondent No.7)-the truck driver did not step into the witness-box, hence adverse inference had to be necessarily drawn against him about his rash and negligent driving of the truck. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon certain judgments in support of his contention. 4(i)(c) Observations I am afraid the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted in the facts of the case. Firstly, there is no definitive or affirmative pleading of the claimant about the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. The claimant in his pleadings is unsure as to whose negligent driving had caused the accident. All that he has pleaded in his claim petition is that ‘the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck in question. However, in case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Indica Car, even in that event, the claimant is entitled to compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of Tata Indica car’. However, in case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Indica Car, even in that event, the claimant is entitled to compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of Tata Indica car’. Quite clearly the claimant had not positively pleaded negligence only on part of the truck driver. He had not ruled out the possibility of accident happening on account of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9. It has also to be kept in mind that the claimant was himself travelling in the car. 4(i)(d) Secondly, the FIR No.88/2008 regarding the accident was registered on 22.02.2008 at Police Station Sadar, District Mandi, H.P. The FIR records that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of car (respondent No.9). A criminal case was registered against him under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the driver of the car has since been acquitted in the said criminal case. But the fact remains that acquittal of car driver in the criminal trial will not come to his aid in the Motor Accident Claim case. It is settled principle that the degree of proof required in criminal trial is at much higher pedestal than required in motor accident claim case. In this regard it will be appropriate to refer to following paras of (2021) 1 SCC 171 , Anita Sharma and others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another: - “21. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non-examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial; but, instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant’s version is more likely than not true. 22. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz wherein this Court reiterated that: “7. 22. A somewhat similar situation arose in Dulcina Fernandes v. Joaquim Xavier Cruz wherein this Court reiterated that: “7. It would hardly need a mention that the plea of negligence on the part of the first respondent who was driving the pickup van as set up by the claimants was required to be decided by the learned Tribunal on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and certainly not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” 4(i)(e) The learned Tribunal has independently examined the facts of the case to come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9. Reference in this regard can be aptly made to following findings recorded in paragraph 15 of the judgment: - “15. Moreover, respondents have also filed on record the copies of the statements of witnesses recorded by Mandi police in the criminal case which are Ex.RW4/D-1 to Ex.RW-4/D-6. The copy of site plan prepared by the police in criminal case Ex.PW5/E has also been filed on record. This site plan is revealing that truck No. HP-20-7785 was on extreme left side of the road and there is about one and half feet vacant road on the left side of the truck, whereas the collusion between the truck and car took place on the middle of the road shown as mark-B and there is about fourteen feet road on the left side of the car. That means the car driver was not on the left side of the road when collusion between both the vehicle took place. This fact goes to establish that the car driver had turned his vehicle towards middle of the road i.e. right side of the road which caused accident in question. This fact goes to suggest that certainly driver of the car was not having full control over his vehicle when he was driving it on public highway and he failed to keep his vehicle towards the left side of the road and this omission in nothing but rash and negligent driving on the part of car driver respondent No.2 in committing the accident in question.” I have seen the site plan proved as Ex.PW-5/E on record of the case. The site plan does go to show that the car driver had turned his vehicle towards the middle of the road, whereas the truck was being driven on the extreme left side of the road. The collusion between the truck and car took place in the middle of the road with around 14 feet road available on the left side of the car. This establishes that the accident in question had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9. 4(i)(f) The mere fact that respondent No.7 (truck driver) did not step into the witness-box is not sufficient in the facts of the case to draw adverse inference against him regarding his driving the truck negligently, as has been contended for the appellant. Each case has to be examined on its own facts. In the facts of the instant case, it is quite clear that the accident in question was caused because of rash and negligent driving of car by respondent No.9. I see no good reason to interfere with the findings returned in this regard by the learned Tribunal. Point No.1 is accordingly answered against the appellant. 4(ii) Point No.II: Liability to pay the compensation: It is the case of the petitioner that his Tata Indica car was duly insured with respondent No.2-insurance company, therefore liability to pay the compensation amount should have been fastened upon respondent No.2. 4(ii)(a) The appellant’s above submission is de hors the facts of the case and against settled legal position. The accident in question took place on 21.02.2008. The Insurance cover note was issued in favour of the appellant by respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) on 23.04.2007, covering the period up to 22.04.2008. The record shows that the appellant had paid premium of Rs.9490/- towards the insurance policy vide cheque dated 20.04.2007 (Ex.RW3/A). This cheque was dishonoured by the ICICI Bank vide memo dated on 28.04.2007 (Ex.RW3/B). Consequently, the insurer (respondent No.2) cancelled the insurance policy and sent specific intimation in this regard to the appellant on 03.05.2007 (Ex.RW4/A and Ex.RW4/E). The Regional Transport Officer, Shimla was also intimated by the insurer about cancellation of the insurance policy vide separate communication dated 03.05.2007 (Ex.RW4/D). The insurer has also placed on record the postal receipts (Ex.RW-4/B) of the communications sent to the appellant. The Regional Transport Officer, Shimla was also intimated by the insurer about cancellation of the insurance policy vide separate communication dated 03.05.2007 (Ex.RW4/D). The insurer has also placed on record the postal receipts (Ex.RW-4/B) of the communications sent to the appellant. The relevant extract of dispatch register was proved as Ex.RW-4/F. 4(ii)(b) In the given facts of the case, it will be appropriate to notice here 2012 (5) SCC 234 , titled as United India Insurance Company Vs. Laxmamma and others, wherein it was held that when cheque issued towards payment of insurance premium gets dishonoured and Insurer cancels the insurance policy subsequent to the accident, in such circumstances the insurer has to stand by the award as its statutory liability to indemnify third parties subsists on the day of accident. Insurer could only recover the amount from insured. Relevant para from the judgment is as under: - “26. In our view, the legal position in this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer on receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorized insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provision of Section 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorized insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorized insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company’s liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof.” In the instant case, the insurance policy was issued on 23.04.2007. Within a view days of issuance, it was cancelled on 03.05.2007 on account of dishonouring of cheque issued by the appellant. The intimation of cancellation of the insurance policy was duly sent by it to the insured appellant as well as the concerned RTO on 03.05.2007 itself. The accident in question occurred on 22.02.2008. Within a view days of issuance, it was cancelled on 03.05.2007 on account of dishonouring of cheque issued by the appellant. The intimation of cancellation of the insurance policy was duly sent by it to the insured appellant as well as the concerned RTO on 03.05.2007 itself. The accident in question occurred on 22.02.2008. In view of law laid down in Laxmamma’s case supra, Insurance Company having not only cancelled the Insurance policy, but also having duly intimated the appellant (insured) and the concerned RTO about cancellation of the policy months before the accident, is not required to satisfy the award or to indemnify the insured towards third party liability. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to raise a plea that the Junior Assistant of concerned RTO office, who stepped into the witness box as RW-5, denied having received intimation about the cancellation of the insurance policy. However, holistic reading of the statement of RW-5 makes it evident that he as a Junior Assistant had only denied that any record regarding the receipt of the cancellation of insurance policy was kept in their office. The insurer, therefore, had discharged its obligations that was required from it in law. It had not only cancelled the Insurance Policy on account of dishonor of cheque issued by the insured, but had also timely intimated this fact to all concerned including the appellant/insured, and the concerned RTO. The accident was caused months after cancellation of the insurance policy. The relevant documents in this regard have been placed on record and proved by the insurer. The findings of learned Tribunal in fastening the liability to satisfy the awarded amount upon the appellant (owner of car) and his driver (respondent No.9) are thus in order. Point is answered accordingly against the appellant. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in the instant appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.