ORDER : (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 02.12.2011 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional and District Sessions Judge No.1), Deeg, District Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.125/2009 whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.4,38,000/-. 2. Brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that on 23.08.2009 an FIR No.594/2009 was lodged in Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur stating therein that on 22.08.2009 at about 6.00 pm a bus of RSRTC bearing registration No.RJ-29-PA- 0584 was coming from Nagar in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. While overtaking a bus of UP Roadways, it collided with a motorcycle, which was driven by one Girdhar Singh and due to which Girdhar Singh sustained grievous injuries and died. 3. The FIR was lodged under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC and after investigation charge-sheet against one Dinesh Kumar, driver of the bus of RSRTC was produced under Sections 379 & 304-A of IPC. 4. A claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed by the dependents of the deceased and a total compensation of Rs.82,56,000/- under various head of compensation was claimed. 5. The claim petition was contested by the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 02.12.2011 and partly allowed the claim petition and total compensation of Rs.4,38,000/- was awarded under various heads. 7. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal the present appeal has been filed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant - RSRTC has submitted that there was no eye-witness of the incident. The wife of the deceased has admitted that she did not see the incident. Testimony of other two witnesses i.e. Raju and Lokendra Singh is doubtful. Affidavit of AW.3 - Lokendra Singh was attested by Oath Commissioner before it was signed by deponent himself, which creates a serious doubt about the contents of the affidavit and the evidence given by such witness. 9. Testimony of other two witnesses i.e. Raju and Lokendra Singh is doubtful. Affidavit of AW.3 - Lokendra Singh was attested by Oath Commissioner before it was signed by deponent himself, which creates a serious doubt about the contents of the affidavit and the evidence given by such witness. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the alleged incident has taken place on 22.08.2009 at 5.00 pm whereas the FIR was lodged on 23.08.2009 at 4.00 pm with a delay of 23 hours. This shows the whole story of the claimant is doubtful. 10. It has been the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant - RSRTC that in this case the evidence given by so called eye-witnesses is not trust worthy because wife of the deceased - AW.2 - Roopkala has admitted in her evidence that she was not present at the time of untoward incident. 11. AW.1 - Raju and AW.3 - Lokendra Singh are also not trust worthy witnesses and both of them have planted a story. 12. It has also been contended that affidavit of AW.3 was signed by the deponent on 22.01.2011 and was submitted before the Court on 29.01.2011, but it was attested by the Oath Commissioner on 12.10.2010, which shows that the examination-in-chief of AW.3 - Lokendra Singh is fully doubtful. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and award and argued that there is no force in the appeal hence, it be dismissed. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 15. AW.1 - Raju has deposed in his affidavit that on 22.08.2009 at the time of accident he was coming from Deeg and going to his village Bedam. The deceased - Girdhar Singh was coming on a motorcycle in a slow speed. A bus of Dausa Depot of RSRTC bearing registration No.RJ-29-PA-0584 was coming from opposite side. It is alleged that the driver took the bus on wrong side of the road and collided with the deceased - Girdhar Singh, who sustained grievous injuries. 16. During the course of investigation, site plain has been prepared and exhibited as Ex.5. In the site plan the place of incident is shown as 'X'. The motorcycle was coming from Deeg and going towards Nagar and the offending vehicle was coming from Nagar and going towards Deeg. 16. During the course of investigation, site plain has been prepared and exhibited as Ex.5. In the site plan the place of incident is shown as 'X'. The motorcycle was coming from Deeg and going towards Nagar and the offending vehicle was coming from Nagar and going towards Deeg. The place of incident was marked in the site plain is the right side of the motorcycle and extreme wrong side of the offending vehicle. It has also been mentioned in the details of the site plan that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was overtaking another bus of UP Roadways. The details mentioned in the site plan is sufficient to prove negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 17. In a motor accident claim requirement of eye-witness is not necessary and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle can be proved by the other evidence collected during the course of investigation, such as site plan and mechanical inspection report of the vehicle involved in the incident. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is no eye-witness in the case so the whole story of the claimants should be treated as doubtful, is not at all sustainable. 18. In this case the incident has taken place on 22.08.2009 at 5.45 pm and the injured was taken to hospital. In the FIR itself father of the deceased has explained that he was busy in the process of postmortem, therefore, the report was submitted immediately thereafter. This delay cannot be treated to be fatal for the case of the claimants because claim petition is a civil proceeding and the same is to be disposed of on the basis of preponderance of the evidence. Standard of proof which is required in criminal case is different from the standard required in civil cases. Therefore, the learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence produced before it has decided the claim petition in right perspective. The findings, of the learned Tribunal, that the deceased was not at all negligent in driving his motorcycle and it was the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle alone, which caused the accident, is not liable to be interfered with. 19. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, which deserves to be dismissed. 20. The present appeal is thus, dismissed. 21. 19. In view of the above discussions, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal, which deserves to be dismissed. 20. The present appeal is thus, dismissed. 21. Stay application too stands dismissed. 22. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.