The acquittal of a driver in a criminal case does not negate civil liability for negligence in a motor accident, as the standards of proof differ.

1. By the present appeal, the Bombay Municipal Corporation (for short “the BMC”) challenges the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, dated 27th February 2004 granting compensation to the claimants/parents for the death of their son caused due to the accident caused by the vehicle owned by the BMC.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the appeal are briefly noted SHUBHADA below:

SHANKAR KADAM The claimants’ son Bhausaheb K. Chormale met with an Digitally signed by

SHUBHADA

SHANKAR KADAM accident on 22nd October 2019 while crossing Dr. E. Moses Road. He

was proceeding from east to west direction when a motor lorry bearing No. MH-01-H-7843 dashed against him. On account of the dash, the claimants’ son of 20 years, 4 months old died in the accident. The motor lorry bearing No.MH-01-H-7843 is owned by the appellant - BMC. The claimants, thus, filed an application before the MACT claiming compensation to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is contented in the claim application that the deceased was nearly 21 years of age at the time of the accident, he was working as a labourer in Hind Plastic Company at Mumbai and earning Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal, considering the evidence placed before it, accepted that the deceased was earning Rs.1,500/- per month and granted compensation of Rs.2,19,000/- to the parents of the deceased. Challenging the award of the MACT, the present first appeal is filed by the BMC.

3. It is the contention of Ms. Khale, learned counsel appearing for the BMC, that the driver of the lorry is acquitted in criminal case filed against him. She also submits that there is no evidence on record to indicate that the driver of the lorry was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. She further submits that the deceased hit the lorry on the rear portion and inference can be drawn that the deceased himself was negligent in crossing the road. She submits that the evidence of the police constable -Kisan Dattu Kumbhar, who at the relevant time was working in the same area and who is also a complainant, cannot be relied upon as he was at the distance of 50 feet away from the spot of the accident and the accident had occurred at night and there is no possibility that he has clearly seen the accident.

4. Per contra, Mr. Mendon, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the evidence of AW1-Kishan Dattu Kumbhar is sufficient to say that the lorry driver was negligent in driving and the boy had already crossed 15 feet distance of road before being hit by the lorry and that the acquittal in criminal case cannot be a basis for rendering finding of negligence as the standard of proof required for conviction in criminal case is much higher than than the standard of proof required to prove the claim before the MACT.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, it can be seen from the deposition of the driver of lorry – Mr. Kishore Manjrekar that the accident took place near BEST Stop No.165. At that time, a bus was standing near the bus stop and his lorry proceeded through right side. The boy was dashed against the rear side of the lorry. He has deposed that the speed of the lorry was very slow and that he was not at fault while driving the lorry. The public had gathered there and tried to beat him and thereafter, he went to Worli Police Station and informed about the accident. The lorry driver in his deposition has stated that the boy rushed towards the lorry on the left side and dashed against it. In the cross- examination, he has stated that he did not see the boy at all and he has accepted that Dr. E. Moses Road is straight one and that there is a divider at that place of accident. The width of the road is 34 feet.

6. The evidence of AW1-Police Constable who was posted at Jijamata Nagar Police Chowki, is relevant. He stated that he was on duty from 8.00 pm to 9.00 am at Jijamata Nagar Police Chowki at Dr. E. Moses Road, Worli and he was standing near the corner and at that time, one boy trie