IMPORTANT POINT
Accident – Claim Petition – Result of criminal proceedings should not affect the claim proceedings under the Act rather it is to be established on the evidence produced

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. The issue involved in the present appeal is regarding the discharge of onus in claim proceedings under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').

2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal) dismissed the claim petition on the ground that rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No. HR-36B/0754 was not proved.

3. Aggrieved of the said award, the present appeal has been filed.

4. Bal Kishan, aged 28 years, lost his life in a motor vehicular accident on 13.11.2009. He was travelling on a tractor. The tractor turned turtle. As a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries on the way to the hospital. FIR was registered on 14.11.2009 on the statement of Sukhbir, who was travelling on the tractor.

5. The legal heirs of Bal Kishan filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). The fact of lodging the FIR was mentioned in the claim petition. The copy of FIR was neither attached nor produced. However, in order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, Ashok-PW2 deposed before the Tribunal and filed his affidavit as Ex.PW2/A. No other witness was produced.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the criminal proceedings have no effect on the claim made under the Act. He further argued that from the deposition of PW2, it was proved that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 defended the award and contended that the initial version of the FIR was that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. He stated that supplementary statement was made by Sukhbir and other witnesses namely Vikram and Rajesh which was recorded on 15.12.2009 and it was on their statements that the driver of the truck was arrested on 16.12.2009. Learned counsel further contended that the claimants have failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the tractor.

8. The law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in decision of Kamlesh and others v. Attar Singh and others, 2015(15) SCC 364. The relevant para is reproduced as under :-

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused, inter alia, the evidence on record of Ram Parshad PW2 and Devender PW.3. The method and manner in which the accident has taken place leaves no room for doubt that it was a case of composite negligence of drivers of both the vehicles, that is the driver of Maruti car and driver of tempo. Though Police has registered a case against driver of the tempo Attar Singh and has filed a charge sheet but the same cannot be said to be conclusive. Though, Attar Singh has stated that it was in order to oblige the driver of the Maruti car, a case was registered against him. Be that as it may, it appears both the drivers have tried to save their liability. In such circumstances, the version of eye-witnesses, PW.2 and PW.3 assumes significance. The fact remains that car had dashed the tempo on the middle portion near footstep. Thus the method and manner in which the accident has taken place leaves no room for doubt that both the drivers were negligent. Man may lie but the circumstances do not is the cardinal principle of evaluation of evidence. No effort has been made by the High Court to appreciate the evidence and method and manner in which the accident has taken place. Both the aforesaid witnesses have stated Maruti Car was in excessive speed. However, it appears driver of tempo also could not remove his vehicle from the way of Maruti Car. Thus, both the drivers were clearly negligent. It appears from the facts and circumstances that both the drivers were equally responsible for the accident. Thus, it was a case of composite negligence. Both the drivers were joint 'tort-feasors', thus, liable to make payment of compensation."

9. Similarly, this Court in Anguri Devi and others v. Lak