The findings of the Criminal Court are not binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, and the compensation amount should consider the deceased's income and family circumstances.

1. Mr. Gian Chand aged about 35 years a labourer or puller of a hand cart was knocked-down by a Punjab Roadways Bus No. PNP-6101 on G.T.Road, Batala at about 1.30 P. M. on 28th January, 1967. He succumbed to the injuries sustained in this accident in a hospital a few hours later. His father and widow who has four minor children from her wedlock with the deceased filed a claim under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the secretary, Transport Department, Punjab and the General Manager of the Punjab Roadways. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has granted them compensation amounting to Rs. 9,000/- and has found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. The Punjab State through its Transport Department has come up in appeal.

2. It is the common ground, according to the evidence examined by both the parties, that the bus was trying to overtake a tonga when the deceaseds cart was knocked down. The deceased had loaded heavy machinery in his cart and was crushed under that machinery which had fallen over him. The accident had taken place on G. T. Road in the busiest part of the town of Batala where there is a good deal of traffic. A bus driver is supposed to slow down when he approaches a busy locality of this type in a big town and his responsibilities are all the greater when he is trying to overtake a vehicle and has to go into the middle or the off side of the road. It is for the vehicle overtaking another to see that the safety of the traffic coming from the opposite direction is not jeopardised or endangered in any manner and if an accident takes place in the process of overtaking it would be for the driver of the overtaking vehicle to show that the accident was not due to any negligence on his part. The puller of a hand cart loaded with heavy machinery could not possibly be blamed for over-speeding and there is no evidence in the shape of the statements of witnesses or a plan of the spot to suggest that the hand cart of the deceased was on the wrong side of the road. The driver of the bus had been acquitted of the charge of rash and negligent driving by a Criminal court but the Accidents Claims Tribunal has to decide the question independently on the basis of evidence examined in this case. The findings of the Criminal Court are not binding on the Tribunal. The Tribunal has referred to a Single Bench ruling of this Court, 1967 A.C.J. 426. which was to the effect that in case of conviction of the driver of a vehicle for rash and negligent driving, the finding of the Criminal Court would be binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the appellants has stated at the bar that this ruling has since been over ruled by a Division Bench of this Court. The Tribunal had therefore taken a correct view when it had proceeded to fix the liability of the driver of the Punjab Roadways bus in spite of his acquittal by the Criminal Court.

3. As regards the quantum of compen sation, the deceased was earning a living as a carrier of goods on his cart in a busy commercial town of Batala. The learned Tribunal may appear to have been rather strict in determining his income to be only about Rs. 2.50 or Rs. 3.00 per day. The fact that he was married and had four children would imply that a substantial part of his income was being utilized for the maintenance of this big family. The deceased was leading an active life and considering his health and profession the learned Tribunal was not far wrong in fixing the expectation of the deceaseds life for another 25 years. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal may appear to have been rather moderate or conservative in fixing the compensation amount at Rs. 9,000/- only.

4. I see no grounds for interference and dismiss the appeal. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed