The non-adversarial nature of claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act and the non-impact of driver's acquittal in criminal proceedings on civil liability.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice

Both these appeals are outcome of a vehicular accident allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Shokat Ali, while driving Maruti Van, bearing registration No. HP-18-5045, rashly and negligently, on 03.02.2005 at about 7.00 p.m. near JBT School, Nahan, and hit a motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-39 A-5987, which was being driven by Aditya Chauhan and Shubham Chauhan was the pillion rider; both of them sustained injuries, were taken to Zonal Hospital, Nahan, where they remained admitted.

2. Shubham Chauhan filed claim petition, i.e. MAC Petition No. 16-N/2 of 2005, titled as Shumbam Chauhan versus Zahid Ali & others, and claimed compensation to the tune of 4,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

3. Aditya Chauhan also filed claim petition, i.e. MAC Petition No. 15-N/2 of 2005, titled as Aditya Chauhan versus Zahid Ali & others, and claimed compensation to the tune of 2,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

4. The respondents, i.e. the driver, the owner-insured and the insurer contested the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections.

5. Identical issues came to be framed in both the claim petitions. I deem it proper to reproduce the issues framed only in MAC Petition No. 16-N/2 of 2005 herein:

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No. HP-18-5045, being driven by Shokat Ali (respondent No. 2), as alleged? ...OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? ...OPP

3. Whether this petition is not maintainable as alleged in preliminary objection ? ...OPR-3

4. Whether the driver of the offending Maruti Van was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time? ...OPR-3

5. Whether this petition has been filed in collusion with the owner and driver of the offending Maruti Van? ...OPR-3

6. Relief.”

6. Parties led evidence. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short “the Tribunal”), after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants entitled to compensation and awarded compensation to the tune of 85,000/- in favour of injured- Shubham Chauhan and 12,000/- in favour of injured-Aditya Chauhan, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions till deposition of the amount, vide two separate awards, dated 02.11.2007 (for short “the impugned awards”).

7. The claimants, the insurer and the driver have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, have attained finality so far it relate to them.

8. The owner-insured, Zahid Ali, has questioned both the impugned awards by the medium of these appeals on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in discharging the insurer and saddling him with liability.

9. This judgment shall govern both these appeals for the reason that these are outcome of the same accident and similar questions of facts and law are involved.

10. The points to be determined in these appeals are - (1) who was driving the offending vehicle, whether Shokat Ali or Shyam Singh Thapa? (2) who is to be saddled with liability?

Issues No. 1 and 3 to 5:

11. The claimants have pleaded in para 21 of both the claim petitions that Shokat Ali was driving the offending vehicle. The owner-insured and the driver-Shokat Ali have admitted the said fact. But, the insurer, i.e. Oriental Insurance Company Limited has denied the said factum and has taken defence in its reply that one Shyam Singh Thapa was driving the offending vehicle, who was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Further, it has pleaded in its reply that the claimants, in connivance with the owner-insured and the driver, have pleaded that Shokat Ali was the driver of the offending vehicles.

12. The claimants have led evidence to the effect that Shokat Ali was driving the offending vehicle despite the fact that