In vehicular negligence cases, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities; appellate courts should consider criminal court findings as informative but not binding.

JUDGMENT :

Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)

CM-5565-CII-2020

This is an application filed under Order XLI Rule 19 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking restoration of the main appeal which was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 10.02.2020 .

For the reasons recorded in the application, the same is allowed. Main appeal is restored to its original number and taken on board today itself.

FAO-1740-1997

Present appeal is directed against award passed by MACT, Ropar, dated 01.03.1997 whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants seeking compensation on account of death of Rameshwar Mahato in a motor vehicular accident, dated 26.10.1994, stands dismissed.

2. Claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 claiming that on the fateful day while the deceased was standing at the bus stand of village Rail Majra, bus bearing registration No.PB-12-A-9241 which was being driven rashly and negligently, struck the deceased. Deceased received multiple injuries and died on the spot.

3. Claim petition was contested by respondents No.1 and 2 pleading that the deceased was trying to cross the road ignoring the fact that the main road was meant for vehicles only. Bus was being driven at a normal speed and the accident was caused by negligence of the deceased himself.

4. Respondent No.3 filed separate written statement claiming that he was driving the bus at a normal speed. When the bus reached at bus stop Rail Majra, a truck was already parked on the road side. Bus was coming from the opposite side. Respondent No.3 retarded the speed of the bus. Deceased came running thinking that the bus was stopping and tried to board the bus. He struck against the truck which was already parked there. Resultantly, he died.

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

' 1. Whether the death of Rameshwar Mahato was caused as a result of rash and negligent driving of bus No.PB-12-A-9241 by Nagina Singh respondent No.3 in the area of bus stand Rail Majra on 26.10.1994? OPA

2. Whether the claim petition is bad for misjoinder of parties? OPR

3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled and from whom? OPA.

4. Relief.'

6. PW-1 Dalbara Singh happens to be the eye-witness. As per his testimony, he was standing on the bus stand. The offending bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the deceased without blowing any horn which resulted in the death of the deceased. Tribunal discarded the testimony of Dalbara Singh and held that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 as the post-mortem report does not show that deceased was crushed by wheels of the bus.

7. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants while assailing the impugned award passed by the MACT, Ropar, submits that FIR qua the accident was lodged on the statement made by Dalbara Singh (PW-1). Respondent No.3 Nagina Singh was tried and stands convicted for offences punishable under Section 279 /304-A IPC and the said conviction stands affirmed up to this Court. He further submits that despite there being no reason to disbelieve testimony of PW-1, Tribunal erred in returning finding on issue No. 1 against the claimants.

8. Per contra, State Counsel submits that the findings recorded by the Criminal Court are not binding upon the Tribunal. Tribunal has returned a well reasoned finding after analysing the entire evidence on record and thus no fault can be found with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through records of the case.

10. Primary dispute between the parties re