* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on: 29th June, 2015
+ MAC. APP. 383/2007
ADESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Arun Srivastava, Advocate
versus
ROOP LAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby compensation of `19,600/- was awarded in favour of Respondents no.1 to 4 (legal representatives of Claimant Roop Lal) for Roop Lal's (since deceased) having suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 19.02.1995.
2. The compensation awarded under various heads is extracted hereunder in a tabulated form:-
MAC. APP. 383/2007 Page 1 of 7
Sl. Compensation under various heads Awarded by the
No. Claims Tribunal
1. Loss to Estate for the Expenses 600/-
Incurred on Medial Treatment
2. Loss to Estate due to Loss of Income 12,000/-
3. Loss to Estate due to Expenses 7,000/-
incurred on Conveyance &
Special Diet
Total Rs.19,600/-
3. The main ground of challenge raised by the Appellant is that his two wheeler scooter bearing no.DL-1SA-1243 was not involved in the accident at all. Hence, the Claims Tribunal erred in making the Appellant responsible for causing the accident.
4. I have the Trial Court record before me.
5. Apart from the registration of criminal case against the Appellant being FIR No.78/1995, Police Station Badarpur which resulted in the Appellant's prosecution under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Shankar Lal, son of injured Roop Lal also filed his Affidavit Ex.PW-4/A and entered the witness box as PW-4 to depose about the accident. Since injured Roop Lal had expired, his statement could not be recorded. However, statement of injured MAC. APP. 383/2007 Page 2 of 7 Roop Lal was recorded in the criminal case being FIR No.78/1995 wherein he testified that he was standing on the kacha road near Sible Cinema in order to cross the road when a two wheeler came from the Delhi side which was proceeding towards Faridabad side and the scooterist dashed against him. He suffered several injuries on account of the forceful impact. Although, injured Roop Lal initially did not identify the accused correctly but later on he identified the Appellant as the person having caused the accident. This testimony of injured Roop Lal recorded in the criminal case against the Appellant coupled with the Appellant's prosecution is sufficient to establish the involvement of the Appellant's two wheeler scooter no.DL-1SA-1243 and the fact that the accident was caused on account of Appellant's rash and negligent driving.
6. The Appellant himself entered the witness box as RW1 and testified that he noticed an old person lying on the road. He stopped his scooter in order to help him. The vehicle which caused the accident had fled away from the spot. He removed the injured to the hospital at the instance of the police. He added that there was no zebra crossing near the place wherefrom injured Roop Lal was to cross the road. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did MAC. APP. 383/2007 Page 3 of 7 not make any complaint to the higher police authorities for his false implication in the criminal case. He admitted that he got his vehicle released on superdari.
7. In the absence of any protest against his implication in the criminal case by the Appellant and failure to give even any suggestion to injured Roop Lal in the criminal case, it is difficult to believe the Appellant's version that he had stopped his two wheeler just to help the injured who was lying on the road side. However, it is true that the Appellant was acquitted in the criminal case.
8. It is well settled that finding of a criminal case will not be binding on the Claims Tribunal deciding the award of compensation in case of death or injury to a victim of a motor vehicular accident. In a criminal case, guilt of an accused is required to be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt whereas in a Claim Petition, the involvement and negligence is required to be proved merely on touchstone of preponderance of probability. In this connection, a reference may be made to the report of the Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and Ors. v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530, wherein while holding that in a petition for award of compensation, negligence has to be proved on the MAC. APP. 383/2007 Page 4 of 7 touchstone of preponderance of probability, in para 15, it was observed as under:-
"15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties."
9. The compensation was awarded by order dated 03.04.2007.
Subsequently, by a judgment dated 05.02.2008, the Appellant was acquitted of the criminal case giving him benefit of doubt. Since in a compensation case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, an independent finding as to the negligence of the driver has to be given, the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case will not make any difference.
10. In my view, negligence was sufficiently established for the purpose of the instant case.
11. It is urged that the compensation awarded is excessive. I have perused the record. Immediately after the accident, injured Roop MAC. APP. 383/2007 Page 5 of 7 Lal was admitted in AIIMS. He was found to have suffered loss of teeth on account of injury, fracture right forearm, injury on the chest and abrasions over various parts of the body. He was found to have suffered major injuries with bleeding. Nature of injuries in the MLC was opined to be grievous. Injured Roop Lal followed up treatment with Dr. Raj Kumar Lalwani as also in AIIMS for several months as is apparent from the OPD cards placed on the record.
12. Thus, the overall compensation of `19,600/- even in the year 1995 cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant.
13. The appeal, therefore, has to fail; the same is accordingly dismissed.
14. By an order dated 05.07.2007, the execution of the award was stayed subject to deposit of the amount of compensation with the Claims Tribunal.
15. The amount deposited along with upto date interest shall be released in favour of Respondents no.1 to 4 in equal proportions.
16. The statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant.
MAC. APP. 383/2007 Page 6 of 7
17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JUNE 29, 2015 vk MAC. APP. 383/2007 Page 7 of 7