Delhi High Court
P.N.Handa & Anr. vs Sandeep Sharma on 10 October, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ FAO 41/2002
Date of Decision: 10.10.2012
P.N.HANDA & ANR. . .... Appellant
Through: Mr.Bharat Arora, Adv.
Versus
SANDEEP SHARMA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms Neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for
R3
AND
FAO 42/2002
P.N.HANDA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Bharat Arora, Adv.
Versus
SANDEEP SHARMA & ORS. ..... Respondent
Through: Ms neerja Sachdeva, Adv. for R-
3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J.
1. These two appeals are being disposed of vide this common
judgment as these arise out of the common judgment dated 26.11.2001
of Judge, MACT, New Delhi in suits bearing No. 310/1992 and
334/1992. Both these suits were filed seeking compensation on
account of the accident that took place on 12th May, 1992.
2. The appellant herein had filed suit no. 310/1992 against the
respondent Sandeep Sharma, who had filed suit No. 334/1992 against
the appellant and his wife. Both, the appellant and the respondent were
driving their respective scooters, when accident took place between
them on 12th May 1992. They both sustained injuries in the accident.
They both filed suits for claiming compensation against each-other.
The police had also registered a case against the appellant under
Section 279/338 IPC wherein ultimately the appellant came to be
acquitted by the Metropolitan Magistrate. Both the parties contested
their respective suits. The learned Judge, MACT vide the impugned
judgment, dismissed the suit of the appellant herein; whereas awarded
compensation of Rs.12,000/- to the respondent Sandeep Sharma
against the appellant. The appellant has challenged the findings of the
Judge, MACT on both these counts by way of these two separate
appeals.
3. These appeals have been filed on the grounds that the learned
Judge, MACT has erred in not taking note of the fact that the accident
was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter being
driven by respondent Sandeep Sharma and that the appellant was
acquitted by the Magistrate in the police case registered against him
under Section 279/338 IPC. It is submitted that his acquittal in the
aforesaid criminal case would testify that the accident was not caused
because of his rash or negligent driving, but that of the respondent
Sandeep Sharma. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was
driving his scooter at slow speed on the left side of the road when his
scooter was struck from behind by the scooter of respondent Sandeep
Sharma and the same stands proved from the mechanical inspection
reports of the scooters, as per which damage caused to his scooter was
on the right side and to that of respondent Sandeep Sharma on the front
and the left side. It is also submitted that the appellant suffered
disability to the extent of 50% and was entitled to compensation to the
extent of Rs.10,00,000/-.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
respondent National Insurance Company and perused the records.
5. The plea that the appellant was driving his scooter at slow speed
on the left side of the road and was struck from behind by the
respondent Sandeep Sharma and as a result of which his scooter fell on
the right side and that of the respondent on the left side and that the
same would be testified from the mechanical inspection reports, has
been elaborately dealt with by the learned Judge, MACT. From the
evidence which was led by the parties, and which has been rightly
appreciated by the learned Judge, MACT, it is noticed that the
appellant had deposed that he was driving his scooter at slow speed on
the left side of the road when the scooter being driven by respondent
hit his scooter with big force. He has not deposed to the manner in
which the accident took place. He did not utter a single word that the
scooter being driven by the respondent Sandeep Sharma hit his scooter
from behind. On the other hand respondent Sandeep Sharma had
categorically stated about the appellant having overtaken his scooter
from the left side and tried to take sudden turn on the right side. This
part of his testimony remained unchallenged throughout. The learned
Judge, MACT has rightly observed that if the scooter driven by the
appellant on the left side was struck from behind by the respondent
Sandeep Sharma, then the damage to the scooter of the appellant would
have been on the rear portion and to the scooter of the respondent on
the front side. As against this, the damage which appeared on the
appellant‟s scooter was on the right side and that on the scooter of the
respondent on the front and left side. The mechanical inspection
report, relied by the appellant, rather lends credence to the version of
the respondent Sandeep Sharma that the appellant had overtaken the
respondent‟s scooter from the left side and the accident took place
when he tried to take right turn towards Princess Park. That is how the
damage appeared on the right side of the scooter of the appellant and
on the front and left side of the scooter of the respondent. I do not see
any illegality in the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Judge,
MACT.
6. Further, the plea that the appellant was acquitted of the criminal
case under Section 279/338 IPC, the learned Judge, MACT has
elaborately dealt with the same in the following manner:
"The ground for acquittal was that there was lot of
contradictions/discrepancies in the testimony of
witnesses and I.O. had not fairly investigated the case.
The accused therein (P.N. Handa) was thus given
benefit of doubt and acquitted. The said prosecution
and subsequent acquittal will not have much bearing
on the aspect of negligence in the accident, as the
standard of proof in a criminal case is „of beyond
doubt‟ while in civil proceedings, it is to rest on the
„preponderance of probability.‟ If any authority is
needed, a reference may be made to a Judgment in
Union of India & another Versus Mrs. Saraswati
AIR 1996 Guhati 31. Similarly in Abdul Rashid
Vs. Shel Prabha (1992) 1 ACJ 441, it was held by
Madhya Pradesh high Court that degree of proof of
negligence in a civil suit and criminal case is
different. Thus because of higher degree of proof,
conviction in criminal case would conclude the
negligence in civil case but acquittal in criminal case
would not necessarily absolve the driver on
negligence in civil case."
7. There is no illegality or perversity in the above reasoning given
by the learned Judge, MACT and I find no reason to disagree with him
that the acquittal of the appellant on account of benefit of doubt, was
not enough to absolve the appellant of his liability of compensation.
8. The plea that the appellant had suffered disability to the extent
of 50 per cent, itself is no ground to entitle him to the award of
compensation, when, as discussed above, the accident was seen to have
been caused due to his own negligence and not that of the respondent
Sandeep Sharma. The learned Judge, MACT rightly recorded the
appellant to be not entitled to any compensation from the respondent.
9. In view of my above discussion, I do not see any illegality or
perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Judge, MACT
that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the
offending scooter by the appellant. The compensation that has been
awarded to the respondent of Rs.12,000/- cannot be said to be unjust or
unreasonable, having regard to the nature of injury suffered by him.
10. I do not see any infirmity in the impugned judgment on any
count. Both the appeals are devoid of any merit and are hereby
dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
OCTOBER 10, 2012
awanish
