Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mr. V.K. Gupta, ACJ
Smt. Asha Devi and others – Appellant
Versus
H.R.T.C. and others – Respondent
MAC Petition No. 05MAC / 2 of 2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not listed
For the Respondents: Not listed
The court highlighted the differing standards of proof in civil and criminal cases regarding negligence and confirmed the adequacy of evidence supporting liability in a civil claim.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections relevant to negligence and compensation assessments - The claimants sought compensation for death of Shishu Pal due to rash and negligent driving by HRTC bus driver, evaluated at Rs.30 lacs; Tribunal dismissed claim citing lack of evidence, conflicting with legal standards. (Paras 10, 12, 18)
(B) Burden of proof - Established that claimants met requirement under standard of preponderance of probabilities, and the acquittal of the driver in a criminal case had no bearing on civil liability. (Paras 12, 20)
(C) Compensation assessment - Determined loss based on deceased's income and multiplier principles from established case law, leading to a total award of Rs.19,23,500/- with 7.5% interest from filing date. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
Claimants filed for compensation after Shishu Pal died from injuries sustained in an accident caused by HRTC bus driver’s negligence on 25th November, 2006.
Findings of Court:
Tribunal's dismissal deemed perverse; claimants proved negligence by driver and were consequently awarded compensation.
Issues: Whether the tribunal's assessment of negligence and liability was proper, and how standards applied to claim for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the differing thresholds of proof required in criminal cases compared to civil claims, emphasizing the preponderance of probabilities and dismissing acquittal in criminal matters as irrelevant in civil liability determinations.
Result: Appeal allowed; compensation awarded.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claimants' appeal regarding tribunal's dismissal of a claim for compensation. (Para 1 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. assessment of evidence pertaining to negligence and liability standards. (Para 10 , 20) |
| 3. methodology for calculating the compensation due to the claimants. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 4. final ruling on appeal and direction for compensation payment. (Para 24 , 25) |
1. The appellants have called in question the judgment and award, dated 12th December, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims TribunalI, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 05MAC / 2 of 2007, titled as Smt. Asha Devi and others versus H.R.T.C. and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants - appellants came to be dismissed (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
2. The unfortunate claimants have been shown door by the novice Judge, namely, Mr. V.K. Gupta, who was manning the post of Motor Accident Claims TribunalI, Sirmaur District at Nahan, as Presiding Officer, on the ground which is not known to law.
3. Brief facts:
The claimants are the victims of vehicular accident, which was caused by Ram Lal, driver, while driving HRTC bus No. HP183592, rashly and negligently, on 25th November, 2006, at about 5.10 P.M. at Balmiki Basti Bus Stop near Petrol Pump at Nahan, in which Shri Shishu Pal lost his life, who was the bread earner of the claimants and on whom they were dependent. Being dependents, they filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, came to be diarized as MAC Petition No. 05MAC / 2 of 2007 and sought compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lacs as per the breakups given in the claim petition.
4. The respondents, i.e. the owner of the vehicle, the driver and the conductor appeared and contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections.
5. After examining the pleadings and the documents, the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 25th July, 2007:
"1. Whether Shishu Pal died on account of the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident involving HRTC Bus No. HP183592 being owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner as also due to the negligence of conductor of the bus in blowing the whistle on dated 25112006, at Balmiki Basti Chowk near Petrol Pump at about 5.10 PM, as alleged? ...OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners being L.Rs. of the deceased Shishu Pal are entitled to receive compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? ...OPP
3. Whether the deceased Shishu Pal was himself negligent in boarding the moving bus without the knowledge of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and as such the petitioners are not entitled to any compensation, as alleged? ...OPR1 to 3
4. Relief."
6. The claimants had to discharge the onus to prove issues No. 1 & 2 and respondents No. 1 to 3 had to discharge the onus to prove issue No. 3. The claimants have examined Smt. Asha Devi as PW1, Shri Anil Kumar as PW2, Shri Sushil Kumar as PW3, Shri Tarsem Kumar as PW4, Shri Suresh Kumar as PW5 and HC Bhim Singh as PW6. The claimants have also proved a number of documents, which were exhibited, including the FIR.
7. The respondents have not examined any witness. Only driverRam Lal, respondent No. 2, has appeared in the witness box.
8. Issues No. 1 and 3:
I wonder how the Tribunal has dealt with this case. The claimants have pleaded that the deceased boarded the bus alongwith the bag on 25th November, 2006, at Balmiki Basti Bus Stop near Petrol Pump, Nahan, at 5.10 P.M., while he was boarding the bus, the conductor had not closed the window and the driver, without taking caution and waiting for the whistle / signal of the conductor, started driving the bus, in the process, Shri Shishu Pal fell down on the road, sustained injuries, was taken to Zonal Hospital Nahan, was declared as brought dead by the Doctor. The claimants have averred that the decea
