SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1759

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Alka Sarin, J.
Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. – Appellant 
Versus
Gurnam Singh @ Gama Singh And Others – Respondent
FAO-1943-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 25-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rajbir Singh, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

CM-7471-CII-2024

1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the main appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

Delay of 97 days in filing the main appeal is condoned.

FAO-1943-2024

3. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh.

4. Since the factum of the accident has not been questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant, the facts, as recorded by the Tribunal concerned, are not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

5. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the involvement of the vehicle has been proved, however, the witness, who had stepped into the witness box before the Tribunal as PW-2, namely, Jagjit Singh, had turned hostile before the Criminal Court which had resulted in acquittal of driver-respondent No.4 herein. His deposition was placed on the record before the Tribunal, however the same has not been considered.

6. Heard.

7. The only argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the witness (PW-2) had turned hostile before the Criminal Court which had resulted in acquittal of driver-respondent No.4 herein. It is trite that the findings of the Criminal Courts are not binding on the Civil Courts.

8. In the case of N.K.V. Bros (P) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal [(1980) 3 SCC 457] the case set up was that since the criminal case in relation to the accident had ended in acquittal, hence, the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 should also be rejected. The Supreme Court negated the said argument and held as under :

9. In view of the above settled position of law, it is clear that dehors the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the matter before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is to be decided on merits, in accordance with law and as per the evidence available on the record.

10. In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top