The acquittal of the driver in a criminal trial does not absolve the owner from paying compensation in a civil case, and the findings of the criminal court are not conclusive in determining negligence in a motor accident claim.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. A challenge has been laid by this FAO to award dated 25.6.2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Una in MAC Petition (RBT) No. 128/01/99.

2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this FAO are that Sh. Dilbag Singh sustained injuries on his person in a motor accident on 22.1.1998 at 1.45 p.m. near village Polian, Tehsil and District Una while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter being driven by his son Jarnail Singh. Initially, the claim petition was filed by Sh. Dilbag Singh and he died during the pendency of the claim petition. His legal representatives were brought on record being son and widow of Dilbag Singh. Sh. Dilbag Singh remained under treatment with effect from 22.1.1998 to 27.1.1998. His disability was assessed to the extent of 25%. The appellants contested the claim petition. It was denied that the accident has been caused due to rash and negligent driving by Sh. Sita Ram, proforma respondent No. 3. In fact, the appellants had denied the very factum of accident caused by the H.R.T.C. bus. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of evidence led by the claimants awarded a sum of Rs. 1,51,816 along with interest @ 9% from the date of petition i.e. 3.8.1999 till realization of the amount vide award dated 25.6.2004. This FAO has been filed against the award dated 25.6.2004.

3. Mr. H.S. Rawat, Advocate had strenuously argued that the findings recorded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal with regard to negligence of the driver are liable to be set aside. He also contended that the driver i.e. proforma respondent No. 3 has already been acquitted of the charge by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una vide judgment dated 13.9.2001 (Ex.RW-1/A). He has also challenged the quantum.

4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate had supported the award dated 25.6.2004.

5. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate had adopted the arguments of Mr. H.S. Rawat.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

7. The accident has taken place on 22.1.1998. Sh. Dilbag Singh remained under treatment in hospital with effect from 22.1.1998 to 27.1.1998. He had suffered 25% disability. The copy of the FIR is Ex.PW-3/A. The disability certificate is Ex. PB dated 15.9.1998. The appellants have taken a contradictory stand before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the manner in which the accident took place on 22.1.1998. A suggestion was put to the petitioner that the scooter skidded resulting in injury to Dilbag Singh though initially the stand of the appellants was that the accident was not caused by HRTC bus and in fact the driver Sh. Sita Ram on humanitarian ground had removed injured Dilbag Singh. Subsequently a suggestion was also put that the bus was being driven by the uncle of the petitioner and in order to save him, Sita Ram, Driver had been implicated. The appellants have not placed on record the copy of the duty register to substantiate that it was the uncle of the petitioner and not Sita Ram, who was driving the bus on the fateful day i.e. 22.1.1998. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on the basis of the self-contradictory stand of the appellants had come to a right conclusion that HRTC bus bearing No. HP-20-0679 driven by proforma respondent No. 3 was involved in the accident.

8. Mr. H.S. Rawat had also argued that pursuant to the FIR Ex.PW-3/A, a challan was put up in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una has acquitted the driver on 13.9.2001. The judgment of the criminal Court rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13.9.2001 has rightly been discarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is settled law by now that the judgment whereby the driver is acquitted will not absolve the owner to pay the compensation by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

9. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Brij Mohan Sahni an