The main legal point established in the judgment is that the driver's acquittal in a criminal trial does not absolve liability in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the court may consider relevant legal precedents for calculating compensation.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

Subject mater of this appeal is the award, dated 10th November, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharamshala (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 91-K/II-2004, titled Shri Surinder Kumar versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimant, in lump sum and the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘HRTC’) was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned award”).

2. The appellant, i.e. claimant-injured had filed claim petition before the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘the Act’, for grant of compensation to the tune of 9,80,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

3. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections.

4. Following issues came to be framed by theTribunal:-

“1. Whether on 23.2.2004 the respondent No. 2 was driving bus No. HP-38-2481 rashly and negligently and had struck against the motor cycle No. HP-39A-2658 being driven by petitioner, resulting in injuries to the petitioner as alleged?….OPP

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

3. Whether the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving of petitioner and is liable for the accident as alleged? …OPR

4. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties as alleged?…OPR

5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the present petition as alleged? …OPR

6. Relief.”

5. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of the claimant, in lump sum.

6. HRTC and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them.

7. The question of rashness and negligence and the factum that the claimant became victim of the accident, are not in dispute.

8. However, the respondents have filed cross objections for setting aside the impugned award, are not maintainable. Hence, dismissed

9. I have gone through the entire record.

10. The claimants have proved by leading evidence that on 23.02.2004, at about 4.00 p.m., near Village Chambi, Tehsil Shahpur, District Kangra, driver, namely, Arjun Singh has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, caused the accident, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries.

11. The Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the driver was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Dharamshala, vide judgment dated 26.08.2006 in Criminal Case No. 15-II/2004 and treating the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘the Act’. It appears that the Presiding Officer is not aware of the basic provisions of the Act and the purpose of granting compensation.

12. My this view is fortified by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Amm Ammal and others etc., al reported in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354 wherein a bus hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties. The driver earned acquittal in the criminal case on the score that the tragedy that happened was an act of God. The Apex Court held that the plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It is apt to reproduce para 2 of the judgment herein:

“2. The Facts: A stage carriage belonging to the petitioner was on a trip when, after nightfall, the bus hit an over-hanging high tension wire resulting in 26 casualties of which 8 proved instantaneously fatal. A criminal case ensued but the accused-driver was acquitted on the score that the tragedy that happened was an a