Delhi High Court
Adesh Kumar vs Roop Lal & Ors. on 29 June, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
* 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:-
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
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
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
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
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.
17. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JUNE 29, 2015
vk
