JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by United India Insurance Company Limited (in short ‘Insurance Company’) against Award dated 16.01.2016, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. in MACP No. 9-I/II/2013/2006, titled as Anju Bala and Others vs. Gurbhag Singh and Another, whereby claim petition preferred by the claimants has been allowed by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,36,000/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of whole amount to be paid by the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, under instructions of Ms. Sangeeta Bali, Senior Divisional Manager, Insurance Company, Division Office Shimla, H.P. is pressing the present appeal only on the ground that the deceased himself was rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle and there was no rash and negligence on the part of owner-cum-driver of the tractor, and he is not pressing appeal on the issue of quantum determined by the MACT, particularly keeping in view pronouncement of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Another, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 3. Claimants have preferred Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for death of deceased Bodh Raj in motor accident, wherein motorcycle driven by the deceased collided with the tractor being driven by Gurbhag Singh, who is also owner of the tractor. Claimants are wife, son and mother of deceased-Bodh Raj. 4. After considering pleadings and evidence on record, MACT allowed the Claim Petition by awarding compensation to the claimants payable by Insurance Company. 5. To substantiate point raised with respect to rash and negligent act of the driver of motorcycle and no fault of the tractor driver, learned counsel for the appellant has referred statement of RW-2 Gurbhag Singh (owner-cum-driver of the tractor), who, in examination-in-chief, has stated that accident took place due to rashness and negligence of motorcycle driver, who hit his motorcycle with tractor parked on the side of the road at Katcha portion. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that FIR was registered against Gurbhag Singh at the instance of pillion rider of the motorcycle, however, Gurbhag Singh was acquitted by the Court of charges framed against him under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) alleging rash and negligent driving on his part and, therefore, it is apparent that accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of tractor driver. 7. It is also noticeable that Insurance Company, though filed reply to the Claim Petition, did not choose to lead any evidence in support of pleadings. Insurance Company is banking upon deposition of Gurbhag Singh. Gurbhag Singh in his cross-examination categorically denied that he did not hit motorcycle with tractor on wrong side by driving tractor in rash and negligent manner, meaning thereby he deposed that he had hit the tractor with motorcycle by driving the tractor on wrong side, resulting into death of deceased Bodh Raj. In cross-examination, he has refuted his own deposition recorded in examination-in-chief that it was Bodh Raj, who was rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle. Therefore, contradictory statement of Gurbhag Singh in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, completely shatters his own version rendering him unreliable witness. 8. Judgment of acquittal of Gurbhag Singh has not been placed on record and, therefore, there is nothing on record to reflect the grounds on which Gurbhag Singh was acquitted. Acquittal may be for benefit of doubt or rendering finding that he was not rash and negligent in driving the Tractor. But it will not construe that the deceased was rash and negligent. Acquittal of Gurbhag Singh, for want of positive evidence or for any other reason, does not mean that deceased Bodh Raj was rash and negligent in driving the Motorcycle. It is also opt to record that standard of proof for convicting a person for rash and negligent driving in a criminal case differs from the standard of proof required for fastening civil liability as in criminal proceedings case set up by the prosecution is to be proved by leading evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, whereas civil liability is to be determined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 9. There is no other evidence on record on this issue except statement of Gurbhag Singh. 9. There is no other evidence on record on this issue except statement of Gurbhag Singh. Pleadings of Insurance Company in reply claiming rash and negligent driving of deceased Bodh Raj have not been supported by any evidence, therefore, pleadings in absence of evidence, particularly in view of contrary evidence on record in cross-examination of Gurbhag Singh is of no help to the appellant-Insurance Company, rather goes against the appellant. Therefore, plea raised by the Insurance Company that deceased Bodh Raj was himself rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of tractor driver, is not sustainable for want of evidence proved in this regard. 10. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in present appeal. Accordingly, same is dismissed. 11. Amount of compensation shall be disbursed amongst the claimants in equal share as awarded by the MACT. It is informed that only a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited in the Registry of this Court at the time of filing of appeal. Rest amount has been deposited before the MACT. 12. Registry is directed to release a sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited in this High Court alongwith up-to-date interest to respondents No. 1 to 3-claimants, in equal share, by remitting the same in their respective bank accounts, on supply of particular thereof. 13. Rest amount stated to have been deposited with MACT shall be released in favor of claimants as per their entitlement, on filing appropriate application after deducting the amount already released, if any, by remitting the balance amount of compensation alongwith up-to-date interest in the accounts of the claimants. 14. Appeal alongwith pending applications is disposed of in aforesaid terms.