The court established the principle that a statement giving up the right not to prosecute for criminal negligence does not amount to an admission of no civil liability, and negligence can be proved based on witness statements and evidence.

K. Kannan, J.

CM No. 11180 CII of 2014

CM is allowed. The document is taken on record.

FAO No. 853 of 1994

1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation. The deceased was said to be 25 years of age and a registered medical practitioner doctor. The claimants are widow, two major sons and a daughter. The accident was said to have taken place when the deceased and his brother were standing and talking in the corner of the road when the 1st respondent's truck dashed against his brother causing fatal injuries. A DDR was recorded on the following day, identified the vehicle but it was stated that the accident had taken place when the deceased was coming on a scooter, had taken a turn suddenly that resulted in a collision with the truck coming from behind. The statement is said to have contained an admission that there was no negligence on the part of either of the drivers and no criminal prosecution be launched. The driver and the owner who had been served with summons did not deny the accident but the Tribunal held that in the light of what was stated in the DDR, the appellants cannot have any tenable claim. A statement giving up his right not to prosecute for criminal negligence cannot amount to an admission that there was also no civil liability to sustain a claim for compensation. In this case, the person who was said to be an eye witness and at whose instance the DDR had been registered resiled from the statement that he had purportedly made and gave evidence to the effect that the accident was the result only of the negligence of the driver of the truck. The court was bound to examine the evidence and assess the issue of negligence. In this case, even apart from the evidence of the brother, there had been also a statement of yet another person who stated that he was an eye witness to the accident and that he had known the accident to be the result of the negligent driving of the 1st respondent's truck driver only. I reverse the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the negligence has been proved and the respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable for the consequences of the accident.

2. It was stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/-, I take the income, as stated, and also provide for prospect of increase at 50%. I tabulate the various heads of claim as under:-

Fatal Accident Date of accident 7.10.1991

Age 25

Occupation RMP doctor

Claimants: Widow and son

Heads of claim Tribunal High Court

Sr. No. Amount (Rs.) Amount (Rs.)

1 Income 2000

2 Add,% of increase 1000

3 Deduction 2000

4 Multiplicand 24000

5 Multiplier 18

6 Loss of dependence 4,32,000

7 Medical expenses

8 Loss of Consortium

9 Loss of love and affection 25000

10 Loss to estate 2500

11 Funeral Expenses 5000

12 Total 4,64,500

3. There shall be an award of Rs. 4,64,500/- and this amount shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. The liability shall be jointly and severally on the respondents. The judgment of dismissal is set aside and the claim for compensation is allowed and the appeal is allowed on the above terms.