JUDGMENT : 1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 11.05.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh Ladakh (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim Petition bearing no.07 titled Tashi Lamoo and Ors. v. J&K State through Director General of Police, J&K and Anr., directing payment of compensation in the amount of Rs.20,52,380/- along with 6% interest, by appellant (State through Director General of Police) in favour of claimants/respondents 1 to 5, on the grounds enumerated therein. 2. A claim petition was filed by respondents 1 to 5 before the Tribunal, stating therein that deceased, Rigzin Namgyal, was under employment of appellant and was working as Head Constable in J&K Police. On 15.12.2006, deceased was hit and ran by the Police Vehicle bearing No. JK02R/4633. A criminal case bearing FIR no.304/06 was registered in police station Kulgam. Respondents in their claim petition sought compensation of Rs.96,99,100/-. in opposition to claim petition of respondents 1 to 5. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues for determination: 1. Whether on 15.12.2006, deceased Rigzin Namgyal died in the fatal accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle JK 02R/4633 resulting in death of the deceased? OPP 2. Whether the vehicle belonged to the State Police Department and respondent No. 2, driver of the offending vehicle was in the employment of the State Police as SPO under No. 245 K on the material date occurrence? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective licence on the material date of occurrence? OPP 4. Relief. 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective license on the material date of occurrence. This issue has been unnecessarily framed as it has nowhere been asserted by the claimants therein that the respondent No. 2 herein was not holding a valid driving license nor it is the case of the claimants/respondents. Therefore, this issue has been deleted being not rising out of the pleadings. 5. Claimants/respondents 1 to 5 produced and examined three witnesses before the Tribunal; besides documentary evidence in support of their claim. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has stated that accident had not at all arisen due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle of driver of appellant. 5. Claimants/respondents 1 to 5 produced and examined three witnesses before the Tribunal; besides documentary evidence in support of their claim. 5. Heard and considered. 6. Learned counsel for appellant has stated that accident had not at all arisen due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle of driver of appellant. She admits that deceased, Rigzin Namgyal, was posted as Head Constable in appellant and was hit by the Police Vehicle bearing No. JK02R/4633. However, according to counsel, it was due to his own negligence that deceased suffered injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. According to her the family of the department. 7. It may not be out of place to mention here that standard of proof in a criminal case is totally different from tortuous claim for an accident victim. The Tribunal has to consider the issue of negligence on the basis of evidence adduced before it, totally uninfluenced by the fact of pendency of a criminal case or acquittal which may be ordered by criminal court. The Tribunal, while dealing with a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 188, stricto sensu, is not bound by pleadings of parties as its function is to determine the amount of fair compensation if accident has taken place by reason of negligence of driver of a vehicle. The Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 (13) SCC 530 , has held that claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not to be applied. 8. Contention of learned counsel for appellant that it was due to his own negligence that deceased received fatal injuries and succumbed to them, and therefore, appellant cannot be saddled with liability of paying compensation to claimants/respondents, does not in any manner change the complexion of the case. Deceased, admittedly, was an employee of appellant and his death has also occurred due to vehicular accident. In such circumstances, appellant cannot wriggle out of its responsibility to pay compensation to claimants/respondents. The case in hand is, otherwise, squarely covered by a judgment passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of State and another v. Kaushalya Devi and others, 2011 (1) JKJ 517 [HC]. 9. In such circumstances, appellant cannot wriggle out of its responsibility to pay compensation to claimants/respondents. The case in hand is, otherwise, squarely covered by a judgment passed by a Bench of this Court in the case of State and another v. Kaushalya Devi and others, 2011 (1) JKJ 517 [HC]. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the Tribunal, while deciding the Issues, have elaborately and eloquently discoursed all facets of the matter. All the Issues, framed by the Tribunal, have been discussed comprehensively and rightly decided after taking into account the statements of witnesses, documentary evidence and law governing the field. 10. Given the discourse herein above, there are no grounds made out by appellant to overturn the findings returned by the Tribunal and therefore, the impugned Award does not warrant any interference. 11. For the reasons detailed above, the Appeal is dismissed.