Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Balinder Pal @ Varinder Singh - Respondent
FAO No.1786 of 2016. (O&M)
Decided On : 18-07-2016
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - 279, 337, 304-A, 427 IPC - 1. Whether deceased Arun Kumar had died in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep bearing No. PB-65V-5808 by respondent No. 1? OPA 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPA. 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a legal and valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so its effect? OPR No.1 & 3. 4. Whether respondent no.2 has committed breach of any other condition of the insurance policy? OPR No.1 & 3. 5. Relief. - The court awarded compensation of Rs.8,62,000/- along with interest for the death of Arun Kumar in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6500/- per month and considering that he was unmarried, deducted 1/2 towards his personal and living expenses. Multiplier of 18 was applied and total loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.7,02,000/- (6500/2 x 12 x 18). Rs.25,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were awarded under the heads of 'funeral expenses', 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of estate', respectively. The court dismissed the appeal by the Insurance Company, emphasizing that the judgment of the Criminal Court determining the guilt or innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned is neither conclusive nor binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, dealing with a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The findings as to the guilt or otherwise of the driver are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the trial on merits of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Such a judgment is relevant only to the extent specified in Section 43 of the Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal challenged the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala awarding compensation for the death of Arun Kumar in a motor vehicular accident. The deceased was driving a motorcycle when it was hit by a Bolero Jeep driven by the respondent. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court awarded compensation for the death of Arun Kumar in a motor vehicular accident. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased and awarded compensation under various heads. The court dismissed the appeal by the Insurance Company, emphasizing that the judgment of the Criminal Court determining the guilt or innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned is neither conclusive nor binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals.
Issues: The issues framed by the Tribunal included determining the cause of the accident, entitlement to compensation, validity of the driving license, breach of insurance policy, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the judgment of the Criminal Court determining the guilt or innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned is neither conclusive nor binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, dealing with a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act. The findings as to the guilt or otherwise of the driver are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the trial on merits of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal by the Insurance Company and upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The judgment of a criminal court regarding the guilt or innocence of the driver involved in a motor accident is neither conclusive nor binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT). The findings of the criminal court are only relevant to the extent specified in the Evidence Act, specifically Section 43, and do not determine liability or negligence in civil claims under the Motor Vehicles Act (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The MACT is required to independently assess evidence in civil claims, and its decision should be based solely on the evidence produced before it, without being influenced by the outcome of criminal proceedings, such as acquittals or convictions (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Evidence from witnesses, including eyewitness testimony, must be carefully evaluated. Witnesses who turn hostile or contradict their earlier statements in criminal court do not necessarily impact the civil tribunal’s assessment, which is to be conducted independently based on the evidence before it (!) (!) .
The delay in lodging an FIR or other procedural issues such as witness hostility should not automatically undermine the credibility of evidence or the claim, especially when the circumstances justify such delays or contradictions (!) (!) .
The findings of criminal courts regarding the guilt or innocence of a driver are not determinative of civil liability for damages caused in a motor accident. The civil tribunal’s assessment hinges on the preponderance of evidence concerning negligence and causation, independent of criminal verdicts (!) (!) .
The court upheld the compensation awarded by the MACT, dismissing the appeal by the insurance company, and clarified that the judgment in criminal proceedings does not bind or influence the civil proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act (!) .
In summary, the legal principle emphasized is that civil claims for motor accident compensation are to be decided independently of criminal court judgments, and criminal acquittals do not preclude civil liability or negate the evidence presented in civil proceedings.
HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.
1. By filing this appeal, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has challenged the Award dated 03.12.2015 passed in MACT No.22 of 01.06.2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short 'the Tribunal') awarding compensation of Rs.8,62,000/- along with interest for the death of Arun Kumar in a motor vehicular accident.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 20.7.2014, at about 8.30 a.m., Arun Kumar and his friend Hanish Kumar were returning to Rajpura from Naina Devi Mandir on their motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-23L-5525. Arun Kumar was driving the said motorcycle. When they had reached near bus stand of village Jansua, the motorcycle was hit by Bolero Jeep bearing registration No. PB-65V-5808, which was being driven by Nirmal Singh-respondent No.3 at a very fast speed and in an utterly rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, Arun Kumar and Hanish Kumar fell on the road. Respondent No.3-Nirmal Singh stopped the offending vehicle at some distance but on seeing the condition of the injured, he ran away. Hanish Kumar had noted the registration number of the offending vehicle. The injured were shifted to Gian Sagar Hospital, Banur. From there, Arun Kumar was referred to the PGI, Chandigarh. Later on, he was admitted in Government Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh, where, he succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 9 p.m. FIR No.115 dated 21.07.2014, under Sections 279, 337, 304-A, 427 IPC was registered at Police Station Shambu regarding this accident.
3. The legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading that the deceased was aged about 24 years and was working as skilled helper, earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
4. Upon notice, respondent No.3-Nirmal Singh (driver of the offending jeep) and respondent No.4-Harbhajan Singh (owner of the offending vehicle) filed written reply denying the involvement of their vehicle in the accident in question. They further pleaded that a false FIR was got registered involving their vehicle in order to extract compensation from them. Appellant-insurer filed separate written reply wherein the fact that the vehicle was insured with it, was not disputed. However, the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident was denied.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-
"1. Whether deceased Arun Kumar had died in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero Jeep bearing No. PB-65V-5808 by respondent No. 1? OPA
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPA.
3. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a legal and valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so its effect? OPR No.1 & 3.
4. Whether respondent no.2 has committed breach of any other condition of the insurance policy? OPR No.1 & 3.
5. Relief."
6. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.6500/- per month and considering that he was unmarried, deducted 1/2 towards his personal and living expenses. Multiplier of 18 was applied and total loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.7,02,000/- (6500/2 x 12 x 18). Rs.25,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- were awarded under the heads of 'funeral expenses', 'loss of love and affection' and 'loss of estate', respectively.
7. Arguments have been heard and paper-book perused with the assistance of Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
8. Challenging the Award, it is argued on behalf of the appellant - Insurance Company that involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is manipulated by the claimants. It has been stressed that Hanish Kumar, who was the author of the FIR in the case though appeared before the Tribunal as PW1 and stated about the involvement of the offending vehicle and its rash and negligent driving but the same witness while appearing before the Judici
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
