The court emphasized the standard of proof in motor accident claim cases, the relevance of criminal trial outcomes, and the need for fair compensation.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- Insurance Company against the award dated 10.03.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that there was no negligence in the present case and in fact the driver of the vehicle has since been acquitted in the criminal case. It is further the contention that the eye-witness Surender Lal, on whose statement the FIR was registered, resiled from his statement before the Trial Court in the criminal case and he was declared hostile. It is further the contention of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the amount awarded towards future prospects is on the higher side and not in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009].

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants has contended that solely for the reason that the driver stood acquitted in the criminal case would not be a ground for dismissing the claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants has further contended that the said question is no longer res integra and the same stands settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2020)13 SCC 486].

4. Heard.

5. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the claim petition was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants (mother and father of the deceased) averring therein that on 25.01.2016 at about 09.50 am the deceased Raysen Soren @ Rai Sain Soren was crossing the slip road of Sector 43, Chandigarh while going to the Bus Stand, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

6. When he reached the main gate of ISBT, Sector 43, Chandigarh, a Haryana Roadways Bus bearing registration No.HR-64-7627 came at a fast speed on the slip road and while it was entering the main gate it struck against the deceased. As a result of this accident, the deceased received serious injuries and eventually succumbed to the same. It was the pleaded case that the bus bearing registration No.HR-64-7627 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver Balwinder Singh. The FIR was registered on the basis of the statement of one Surender Lal who was a rickshaw-puller and was waiting for the passengers near the main gate. The deceased was 34 years of age at the time of the accident and earning Rs.12000/- per month.

7. In response to the notice, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein filed their written statement taking the preliminary objections regarding the cause of action and liability to pay compensation. It was pleaded that no accident took place and the FIR was lodged on the basis of wrong facts. The driver, respondent No.5 herein, filed a separate written statement raising the objections regarding maintainability and suppression of facts. The appellant-Insurance Company filed a separate written statement taking the usual preliminary objections. It was further averred that the owner of the vehicle allowed a driver to drive the same who was not having a Driving Licence.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether accident dated 25.1.2016 at about 9.50 AM resulting in death of Raysen Soren @ Rai Sain Soren occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.HR-64-7627 by respondent no.3 ? OPP

2. Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation for death of Rayseen Soren @ Rai Sain Soren, if so, to what extent and from whom ? OPP

3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid & effective driving license on the date of accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy ? OPR4

4. Relief.

On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on the record, the Tribunal awarded the following c