The judgment emphasizes the inadmissibility of evidence from a criminal case in a motor accident case and the application of legal principles to determine compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral)-These three appeals arise out of one award and are, therefore, being disposed of by one JUDGMENT.

2. The undisputed facts are that an accident of Maruti Van No.HP-01-A-0115 took place with truck No.HP-11-4427 on 17.10.2001 near Hatkoti. The claimants are legal heirs of three persons who died in the accident. All the deceased were traveling in the Maruti Van. In fact, one of them Ramesh Kumar was the driver of the Van. The claim petitions were filed alleging that the accident has occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the truck. The learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petitions and come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and held the appellant-Insurance Company to indemnify the insured since the truck was admittedly insured with it. The Insurance Company had obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the petitions on all grounds and in these appeals the Insurance Company is challenging the award on the issues of negligence and quantum.

3. The issue of negligence is common to all the cases. One of the claimant Smt. Sanehru Devi appeared as PW-2. According to her, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver and the truck was at a high speed. She has been cross-examined to the effect that the truck was going uphill and was in a slow speed. A suggestion was also put to her that the van was going downhill and was being driven at a high speed. She denied these suggestions. The truck driver did not appear in the witness box. The Insurance Company examined one witness who produced on record the copy of the JUDGMENT Ext.RW-3/1/B whereby the driver of the truck was acquitted in the criminal case filed against him. Evidence led before the JMIC, Jubbal in the criminal case was also produced and exhibited RW-3/1/C.

4. Shri Ashwani Sharma, urges on the basis of the said JUDGMENT and the evidence led in the criminal case that the truck driver was not responsible. As far as the evidence led in the criminal case is concerned that cannot be looked into while deciding claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. Once the Insurance Company had sought and obtained permission to contest the appeal on all grounds, it should have examined the persons whose statements had been recorded in the criminal case and the statements recorded therein could have been used only for confronting the witnesses and for no other purpose. Even as far as the JUDGMENT rendered in criminal case is concerned no reliance can be placed on the same while deciding a matter under the Motor Vehicles Act. The degree of proof required in a criminal case is a much higher and the accused in a criminal case can only be convicted if he is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. On the other hand, in a motor accident case the matter has to be decided on the basis of probabilities and preponderance of evidence. In such a matter the version which is more probable has to be accepted. It would be pertinent to mention that the JMIC in its JUDGMENT himself has stated that where two inferences are possible one favouring the accused has to be taken. Therefore, this JUDGMENT cannot be used in this case.

5. The truck driver was not examined and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn. The only evidence is that of the claimant Smt. Senehru Devi, who was admittedly traveling in the Van. There is no reason to disbelieve her statement. The finding of the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is accordingly upheld.

6. Coming to the quantum, each appeal is now being taken up separately.

7. FAO No. 364 of 2006 arises out of claim petition MACC No. 6-S/2 of 2003 filed by Sunpa Devi. Her son Ramesh Kumar was the owner-cum-driver of the Maruti Van which he was running as a taxi. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. According to the claimant, the deceased was earning Rs.20