The judgment established the requirement of prima facie proof in summary proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and emphasized the impact of criminal case acquittal on claim petitions, while applying the principles of liability and compensation in road accidents.

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 09/07/2010, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (1), Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P. in 89-MAC/2 of 2008, titled Smt. Prem Lata and another versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants came to be partly allowed and Rs.50,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants and against respondents No.1 and 2, under no fault liability, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short.

2. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Thus, the same has attained the finality so far as it relates to them.

3. The claimants have questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

4. The claimants being the victims of a vehicular accident had filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation on account death of Rahul Panwar, who was working as a teacher/tutor and farmer, earning Rs.8750/- per month, was coming from the side of Ambwala to Nahan on Scooter No. HP-18-1338 and was driving it on his own side of the road. The bus bearing registration No. HP-18-B- 7509, owned by respondent No.1, i.e., Himachal Road Transport Corporation, hit the said scooter due to rash and negligent driving by its driver Abdulla Khan respondent No.2, due to which the deceased sustained the injuries and succumbed to the injuries. FIR No.247 dated 26.11.2006 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A Indian Penal Code at police Station Nahan against the bus driver. Thus, the claimants had sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition.

5. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal.

“(i) Whether Rahul Panwar died due to rash or negligent driving of bus No. HP-18B-7509 by respondent No.2 Abdulla Khan on 26.11.2006 near Gosadan, Ambwala, as alleged? OPP.

(ii) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP

(iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the dismissal of the previous petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, as alleged? OPR.

(iv) Relief.

6. The claimants have examined PW1 Hussan Lal, PW3 Yogesh Kumar and claimant No. 2 Rohit Panwar himself stepped into the witness-box as PW2.

7. On the other hand, respondents have not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants have remained un-rebutted.

8. While going through the FIR Ext. PW2/B and post-mortem report Ext. PW1/A, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that there is prima facie proof that driver Abdulla Khan has driven the HRTC bus rashly and negligently. FIR was lodged against him, which has resulted into the final report, in terms of the Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Court of competent jurisdiction, is suggestive of the fact that Investigating Officer has come to the conclusion that the accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving by Abdulla Khan driver of HRTC bus, who faced trial and came to be acquitted vide judgment dated 29.11.2008 passed in Cr. Case No. 33/2 of 2007.

9. Record of the criminal case was sent for. The Trial Court in para 35 of the judgment has recorded that the ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code are not established on record by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Meaning thereby case of the prosecution was shrouded in doubts, is not a clear cut case of acquittal. It is apt to reproduce para 35 of the judgment herein.

“35.In the case in hand, both the aforesaid eye witnesses have attributed the cause of accident to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the deceas