Accident – Claim Petition – Findings of criminal court as to the guilt or acquittal of the driver are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the trial on merits of the claim petition before MACT

Mr. Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - The insurer has filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 16.2.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts as disclosed in the claim petition are that on 08.07.2016 near Government College, Dujana, District Jhajjar, a vehicular accident took place involving Swift car No.HR-36N-9696 (herein for short ‘the offending vehicle’), wherein, Sunil Kumar lost his life. The accident was alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. FIR regarding the accident was also registered in Police Station Jhajjar.

3. On a claim petition having been filed by the legal representatives of Sunil Kumar, the Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.8000/- per month, granted addition of 40% towards future prospects, deducted 1/4th towards his personal expenses, applied the multiplier of 18 (deceased aged 24 years). The loss of dependency was assessed at Rs.18,14,400/- (8400x12x18). Rs.15,000, each, towards ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral expenses’ were also awarded. In all, compensation of Rs.18,84,400/- along with interest was awarded.

4. Challenging the Award, Ld. Counsel for the appellant – Insurer has contended that the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was not proved before the Tribunal. It is stated that though it was pleaded by the respondents – claimants that the motorcycle of the deceased was hit at its back by the offending vehicle, but the mechanical report reveals that the motorcycle was damaged from front side only. It is stated that no vehicle number was mentioned in the FIR, which was lodged by Phool Kumar, the father of the deceased. It is also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted in the Criminal Case registered regarding the accident, and, hence, rashness and negligence on his part cannot be said to have been proved before the Tribunal.

5. The Trial Court had framed the following issue on the point of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle:

“Whether deceased Sunil Kumar son of Phool Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 08.07.2016 due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-36N-9696 by driver respondent No.1? OPP”

6. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal decided the above issue in favour of the claimants -respondents and it was held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.

7. To prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.6 – Inderjeet (respondent No.1 before the Tribunal), the claimants had examined Om Parkash, alleged eye-witness of the accident as PW2. The final report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the Police in the FIR and the copy of order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate, framing charge against respondent No.6 were also produced on record. PW2 Om Parkash stated on affidavit that he saw the deceased coming from the side of Bahadurgarh on motorcycle. At the same time, the offending vehicle i.e. Swift car bearing Registration No.HR-36N-9696 driven by Inderjeet in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from behind and hit the motorcycle of the deceased. After the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle stopped for a while and then fled away from the spot.

8. The matter was investigated by the police of Police Station Jhajjar and it was found that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by Inderjeet – respondent No.6. Accordingly, in the report filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Ilaqa Magistrate, the Police indicted him for committing the offence under Section 304-A, etc. IPC. Further, the Trial Court also finding a prima facie case against him, framed charges against him.

9. No doubt, in the FIR recorded at the instance