IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that acquittal in a criminal case does not negate vehicle involvement in an accident, and compensation must ensure just outcomes reflecting the victim's suffering and future needs.

JUDGMENT :

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 19/08/2013 rendered in MACP No.919 of 1999 by the MACT, Bhavnagar, the appellant – insurance company has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act.

2. The facts, emerges from the record of the case are that on 19-08- 1999, the minor-son of applicants was playing nearby their society at Bhavnagar. At about 3.00 pm, the opponent No.1 came there by driving a four-wheeler vehicle bearing No.GJ-4.T 6461 rashly and negligently, in full speed and dashed his vehicle with the minor-son of the applicant. As a result thereof, he sustained (1) fracture in the forehead, (2) fracture behind the head, (3) serious injuries in the brain and so that, suffered internal haemorrhage due to which, (4) his right part of the body suffered permanent paralysis, (5) right hand and right leg became oblique, (6) eyes also became oblique and (7) lost memory power and thereby, suffered permanent neurological disability. It is further submitted that at the relevant time, the minor-victim was aged about 5 years and studying in Standard 2nd. Thus, due to the above accidental injuries, the minorvictim has suffered serious injuries and thereby, disfigurement and permanent disability and hence, not able to do all the regular and routine work as was doing earlier and is facing great hardships and difficulties in doing the same. A huge amount behind the treatment and medicines has been spent. Moreover, due to long treatment and taking rest as per the advice of the doctor, his study has suffered a lot. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed the claimed amount as compensation on various grounds Initially, the claim was filed for Rs.5,00,000/-, but subsequently, vide an application-Ex.68, the applicants moved an application under the provisions of Order-6, Rule-17 to enhance the claim from Rs.5 lacs to Rs.15 lacs which came to be allowed.

3. The learned tribunal after full-fledged trial and considering the oral and documentary evidence led before it was pleased to award the compensation of Rs.6,82,500/- to be recovered from the opponents jointly and severally together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. and proportionate costs from the date of Claim Petition till its realization.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Majmudar for the appellant – insurance company and learned advocate Mr.Bhat, for the respondents no.1 and 2.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant Mr.Majmudar assailed the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground of non-involvement of the offending vehicle. He would submit that FIR and charge-sheet of the accident was filed but since the complainant has entered into compromise with the accused which has resulted into acquittal of the driver of the offending vehicle from the road accident and this fact is apparent from Exh.72 as the learned JMFC delivered the judgment in the criminal case acquitting the accused/driver upon the compromise with the complainant. He would therefore submit that looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case on record, it is a case established before the tribunal that offending vehicle was not involved in the road accident but the driver was subsequently arraigned to make out the case under the MV Act. In other words, it is argued that vehicle is implicated as it brings the case within the ambit of MV Act. By making these submissions, he would submit to allow this appeal and to quash and set aside the judgment and award delivered by the tribunal.

6. Per contra, learned Advocate Mr.Bhatt for the claimants would submit that documents on record are sufficient to indicate that the accident took place; even vehicle is also involved in the road accident however the driver was acquitted on the ground of non-establishment of the negligence. He would further submit that judgment passed by the criminal court acquitting the accused is not binding to the MACT while deciding the claim petition under Section 163-A or 166 of th