The court upheld the MACT's award of compensation, emphasizing the significance of FIR in establishing negligence and affirming the principle that acquittals in criminal cases do not bind civil liability determinations.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the Award dated 28.07.2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Solan, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “MACT Solan), vide which, the appeal filed by the present appellants (respondents no. 4 and 5 before the learned Trial Court) was dismissed. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned MACT for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned MACT, seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs), for the death of Dinesh Kumar, caused in a motor vehicle accident involving the vehicle bearing registration no. HP-63-0862, owned by respondent no.1 and Scooter bearing registration no. HP-14-1581, owned by original respondent no.3, Vishal Walia. It was asserted that the deceased was travelling on the scooter bearing registrationno.HP-14-1581, as pillion rider on 01.09.2004. Original respondent No.3, was driving the scooter at a slow speed on its side. When the scooter reached the MC building, a truck bearing registration no.HP-63-0862, driven by respondent no.2 came from the opposite side at a high speed. The truck hit the scooter on the wrong side of the road. The driver of the scooter and the Dinesh Kumar suffered multiple injuries. The driver of the truck got the F.I.R. registered against the driver of the scooter in connivance with the police. The occupants of the scooter were taken to Zonal Hospital Solan. Dinesh Kumar was referred to PGI, Chandigarh but he succumbed to his injury on the way. He was brought back to the Zonal Hospital, Solan, where his post-mortem was conducted. The accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent no.2, who was driving the truck. Dinesh Kumar was 27 years of age. He was employed as a plumber with M/S Rajinder Chauhan and Anudeep Kumar ( A-Class Contractor). He was getting a salary of Rs.5200/- per month. He also used to earn Rs.2500/- per month by working as a plumber in the houses, buildings and Sanitary Stores. Dinesh Kumar was the only breadwinner of the family. Hence, the petition was filed for seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

3. The petition was opposed by respondent no.1 by filing a reply denying the contents of the petition. It was asserted that the driver of the scooter and the pillion rider were under the influence of liquor. The driver of the scooter could not control it and hit a stationary truck. The truck was on its right side and the scooterist hit the truck on the wrong side. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the scooter. An F.I.R No. 205 of 2004, was registered against the driver of the scooter for the commission of offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the truck. The FIR was rightly registered. The vehicle was duly insured with original respondent no.4 and it is liable to indemnify the owner; therefore, it was prayed that the claim petition be dismissed against respondent no.1.

4. Respondent No. 2 also filed a separate reply taking similar pleas. He also denied that the accident had occurred due to his negligence. He claimed that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the scooter, who was intoxicated and hit the truck on the wrong side of the road. Hence, it was prayed that the petition be dismissed against respondent no.2.

5. Respondent No.3, filed a separate reply, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, the petition being bad for the non-joiner of parties, and respondent no.3 not being the registered owner of the scooter. The contents of the petition were denied on merits. However, the death of Dinesh Kumar was not disputed. It was asserted that respondent no.3 was not the registered owner of the scooter bearing registration no. HP14-1581. The accident occurred d