209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2541-2001 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 17.09.2025 RAM KARAN ....Appellant Versus VED PARKASH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Devesh Nehra, Advocate for the appellant.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

The present appeal has been preferred by respondent No.1-

driver of offending vehicle being aggrieved by Award dated 11.01.2001, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’).

2. Appellant who was driving the offending vehicle bearing No.DL-1CD-7713 is aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- and also by finding of learned Tribunal holding respondent No.1 liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.1 and respondent No.2A (owner of vehicle) were held liable to pay compensation, on the ground that Jeep was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of policy as it was being used for commercial purposes and being plied for hire and reward.

3. In the present case, injured eye witness himself had appeared as PW3 and on the basis of evidence of PW3, learned Tribunal has concluded that it was respondent No.1 who was rash and negligent. PW3 had asserted “that driver of Jeep was driving the vehicle at fast speed and when the Jeep reached near Tilyar Lake, Tata 407 came from opposite direction and driver of the Jeep tried to avoid the accident, but in that process the driver of Tata 407 had hit the Jeep, on account of which claimant had fallen from the Jeep and suffered multiple injuries on his person”. PW3 claimant has further asserted that at the time of accident, more than 10 persons besides the driver were travelling in the Jeep. He has also asserted that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Ram Karan respondent No.1- driver of Jeep and he had lodged FIR against respondent No.1 for causing the accident.

4. Based upon above noted assertions made by PW3, learned counsel for appellant has argued that from the evidence of claimant it is clearly made out that it is the case of contributory negligence as both Tata 407 and offending vehicle were being driven in rash and negligent manner. However, on consideration, I do not find any merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. The evidence has to be read in totality and not in parts. PW3-injured/claimant had duly asserted that it was respondent No.1 who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He has duly stated that Jeep was overloaded as it was occupied by driver along with more than 10 persons. He has further asserted that FIR was only lodged against respondent No.1 and not against driver of Tata 407. If these facts as asserted by PW3 are taken into consideration, cumulatively it will lead to only one conclusion that it was respondent No.1 who alone was rash and negligent in driving the offending vehicle as Jeep was overloaded and he was driving rashly and negligently. Merely because driver of the Jeep had made effort to save his vehicle from accident and it was hit by Tata 407, cannot result in conclusion that Tata 407 was also driving rashly and negligently. The cumulative reading of PW3 in fact goes to show that it is respondent No.1 alone who was stated to be rash and negligent. No fault with the finding of learned Tribunal can be found.

5. Similarly the argument raised on behalf of appellant that since driver of the vehicle i.e. respondent No.1 has been acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, the finding of learned Tribunal is required to be set aside, again is without any merit.

6. The findings in criminal trial has got no bearing on civil matters/Civil Court/Tribunal. The standard of proof in criminal trial and in a motor accident case are totally different from each other. In criminal trial, the standard of proof is to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, whereas in motor accident claim case the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and, therefo