The standard of proof for negligence in a claim petition is different from that in a criminal case, and a claimant cannot later deny negligence if they have admitted it in a criminal proceeding.

G. P. MITTAL, J.

1. The Appellant Gopal S. Krishnan impugns a judgment dated 28.08.2002 arising out of the Claim Petition No.530/2001 whereby a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) on the ground that the Appellant had failed to establish that the accident was caused on account of rash or negligent driving on the part of the First Respondent of Maruti Van No. DL-2C-F-0883. The said vehicle was owned by the Second Respondent, financed by the Third Respondent and insured by the Fourth Respondent.

2. The manner of accident as stated by the Appellant and the defence of the First and the Second Respondent as stated in paras 2 and 6 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder:

“2. It is alleged that on the night intervening 26/27-5-1994 at about 12.30 a.m. petitioner was returning back to his residence on his Maruti Car No.DL-3C-D-3363 via National Highway No.24. On reaching the right turn towards Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, petitioner stopped his car at Patparganj crossing on the left side of the road because he saw two speeding vehicles coming from the side of Ghaziabad. One of those vehicle was an ambassador car moving on the left side, a Maruti Van was trying to overtake said Ambassador car at a very fast speed from right side. When those vehicles reached near Patparganj crossing the driver of Maruti Van lost his control as the driver of Ambassador car apparently reduced the gap between his car and central verge. The Maruti Van driver in order to avoid hitting the central verge took a sudden right turn of about 160 degrees. Consequently, he hit the stationary Maruti Car of the petitioner. Due to the impact, Maruti Van over turned and the car of the petitioner was badly damaged. Petitioner sustained serious injuries on his right eye, nose, forehead and face etc.

x x x x x x x x

6. Respondent No.1 and 2 have filed a joint written statement. They have admitted the impugned accident. They have also admitted that respondent No.1 was the driver of the offending Maruti Van and respondent No.2 was its registered owner. According to them the offending van was insured with respondent No.4 insurance company. These respondents have denied the allegations that respondent No.1 was driving the Maruti Van at a fact speed or that Maruti Van was over loaded or the impugned accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van on the part of respondent No.1. respondent No.1 and 2 have also alleged that the claim of the petitioner is excessive.”

3. The Claims Tribunal framed the issues by an order dated 08.05.1998. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was brought on record that an FIR bearing No.254/94 under Section 279/337 IPC was registered against the Appellant. A charge sheet was filed against him, to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC. In fact, these facts were not disclosed during inquiry before the Claims Tribunal by the Appellant. It was only when an application under Order 18 Rule 17A was moved by the First and the Second Respondent i.e. the driver and the owner of Maruti Van No. DL-2C-F-0883 that it was admitted by the Appellant that the police did register an FIR against him and that he was also convicted for the offence of rash and negligent driving for the accident in question. The Appellant’s plea before the Claims Tribunal was that the finding of the criminal court was not binding on the Claims Tribunal and since his evidence had not been repudiated, it will be treated as sufficient proof of negligence on the part of the First Respondent. This plea of the Appellant was rejected by the Claims Tribunal.

4. The judgment in Pankajbhai Chandulal Patel v. Bharat Transport Co. & Anr, 1997 ACJ 993 relied upon by the Appellant was also distinguished as not being applicable to the facts of the present case. The Claims Tribunal held as under:

“15. I do not find