IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 19 of 2016 ----- District Fisheries Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bokaro Steel City, P.O &P.S.-Chaas, Dist.-Bokaro … …. Appellant Versus 1. Subal Kumar Jha, S/o Aditya Kumar Jha, R/o Village-Chandipur, P.S & P.O-Kasmar, Dist.-Bokaro 2. Kalim Ansari, S/o Md. Ansari, R/o Village-Kurko, P.O-Majura, P.S.-Kasmar, Dist.-Bokaro … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Mehta, AC to G.P-VI For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate ----- Oral Order 13 / Dated : 27.01.2025 1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the award of compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 86/2012, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs. 2,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application in favour of the claimant, who suffered 40% disablement in a motor vehicle accident involving in Pick-up Van bearing Registration No. JH 09 P 3801. 2. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle and as per the claim case, the accident took place on 10.12.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. At the time of accident, the claimant was 27 years of age and was having a monthly income of 7,000/-. 3. The appeal has been preferred on the ground that there was an inordinate delay of seven months for lodging the FIR. The vehicle in question was transferred to the Society on 10.12.2011 before the date of accident. 4. On perusal of record of the case, it appears that the claimant suffered a motor vehicle accident on 10.12.2011 when he was hit by the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. JH09P 3801 which was 2 being driven rashly and negligently. Kasmar P.S. Case No. 47 of 2012 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC on 12.07.2012, on the basis of the written report submitted by the claimant Subal Kumar Jha. 5. The appeal has been preferred principally on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the criminal cases. 6. This Court is of the view that this cannot be a ground for appeal, as the standard of proof in criminal and civil cases are different. In criminal cases, a fact is to be proved beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubt, whereas in civil cases it has to be proved beyond the preponderance of all probabilities. 7. Learned Tribunal has noted that there was a permanent disability of 40% resulting from the accident which has been duly proved on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. The permanent disability certificate has been brought on record and marked as Ext. 8. Under the circumstance, I do not find any merit in the instant appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed at the stage of admission itself. The appellant is directed to ensure that the payment of the compensation amount is made within a month of this order, failing which the Tribunal will be at liberty to take appropriate steps for execution of the award. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra