of the appellant that he was not aware of the proceedings before the Tribunal. It was well within the competence of the appellant to produce all evidence necessary for proving his case, which he has not done, for which, he himself has to suffer. The appellant has produced the criminal court judgment in this appeal. Of course, it holds that the prosecution has not proved the identity of the driver of the scooter. But it is a fact that the judgment was not produced before the Tribunal. Apart from that, the police charge was against the appellant in the criminal case. The investigating officer, who was examined in the criminal case, had deposed that he obtained a reply from the registered owner of the scooter that the appellant was driving the scooter on the date of the accident. The appellant did not go to the box before the Tribunal to prove otherwise. Therefore, the criminal court records, in the absence of any other evidence to disprove the same, are sufficient proof regarding the fact that the appellant himself was driving the scooter and he was negligent in driving the vehicle, which caused the accident. The criminal court judgment cannot be the last word for the purpose of deciding a motor accident claim, insofar as the standard of proof required in a criminal case is far higher than that in a motor accident
