Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh & Anr vs Rishi Paswan & Ors on 16 December, 2023
Author: Archana Puri
Bench: Archana Puri
2023:PHHC:161990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-1709-2014 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 16, 2023
Balbir Singh and another
...Appellants
VERSUS
Rishi Paswan and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI
Present: Ms.Harpreet Kaur Gill, Advocates
for the appellants.
None for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
ARCHANA PURI, J.
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment of dismissal
of the claim petition filed to seek compensation, on account of death of
Amritpal Singh, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on
14.10.2011.
On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, learned
Tribunal concluded about the accident to have taken place entirely on
account of rash and negligent driving of the deceased Amritpal Singh and
thus, on this account, the claim petition was dismissed, vide impugned
judgment.
2023:PHHC:161990
Feeling aggrieved with the dismissal of the claim petition, the
appellants-claimants have filed the present appeal.
Learned counsel for the parties heard.
The essential facts to be noticed, are as follows:-
That, on 14.10.2011, deceased Amritpal Singh, while driving
the motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-10-DG-0741(T) was proceeding
from village Sahabana to Bholapur, District Ludhiana. He was followed by
Jasbir Singh and Balbir Singh, who were travelling on their separate
motorcycle and were behind the motorcycle of Amritpal Singh. Respondent
No.1-Rishi Paswan, while driving the tractor bearing registration No.PB-
25A-3585 was also proceeding to village Bholapur from Sahabana. At about
8.15-8.30 a.m., when Amritpal Singh turned towards his right side,
respondent No.1, who was also following on the same side, increased the
speed of his tractor and turned the same, towards right side, as a result
whereof, the offending tractor struck against the motorcycle of Amritpal
Singh and ran over him. Amritpal Singh was crushed and the motorcycle
was damaged. Jasbir Singh and Balbir Singh had stopped their motorcycle
and removed Amritpal Singh to CMC, Hospital. However, while on way to
the hospital, Amritpal Singh had breathed his last. Also, it is the version of
the appellants-claimants that the accident had taken place, on account of rash
and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No.1-Rishi Paswan.
In the claim petition, further it is asserted that Amritpal Singh
was about 22 years of age and he was working as Lab Assistant in Ralson
India Ltd., G.T. Road, Ludhiana and he was earning Rs.4,016/- per month.
He was unmarried and thus, the claim petition has been filed by the parents
2023:PHHC:161990
of the deceased.
In reply, respondents No.1 and 2-driver and owner of the
offending vehicle, had denied the occurrence of accident and involvement of
the tractor in question and the role assigned to respondent No.1. Likewise,
respondent No.3-insurance company had also filed separate reply, wherein,
preliminary objections were raised, thereby, disputing the maintainability of
the claim petition, validity of the permit of the offending vehicle and driving
licence of respondent No.1. The occurrence of the accident had also been
disputed.
In pursuance of the framing of the issues, Balbir Singh-
appellant No.2, who is father of the deceased, stepped into witness box as
PW-2. The claimants have also examined Jasbir Singh and Manjot Singh as
PW-1 and PW-3, respectively. On the other hand respondent No.1-Rishi
Paswan, has stepped into witness box as RW-1. The insurance company had
also examined Nirmal Singh as RW-2 and insurer has also tendered into
evidence, certified copies of the documents, which are Ex.D2 and Ex.D3.
Keeping in view the aforesaid version, learned Tribunal had
made reference to the cross-examination of PW-1 Jasbir Singh, who is
author of the FIR and had concluded that the deceased was on katcha path,
while the offending vehicle was on the metal portion of the road, at the place
of accident and reached the conclusion that the deceased was trying to
overtake the tractor from the left side of the tractor and immediately, after
overtaking the tractor from the left side of the tractor, the deceased turned
his motorcycle towards right side, thereby, suddenly, coming in front of the
offending vehicle. In fact, it was observed that deceased was duty bound to
2023:PHHC:161990
overtake the tractor, from the right side and after blowing horn and giving
warning to respondent No.1. It was also observed that the deceased was
duty bound to come in front of the tractor, only after taking his motorcycle
reasonably ahead of tractor, thereby, avoiding the accident. Hence, it was
concluded that the deceased did not observe any of the aforesaid
precautions, as a result whereof, the accident had taken place, solely, on
account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the deceased that
the accident had occurred.
In the light of the such conclusion, drawn by learned Tribunal,
learned counsel for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the finding,
so recorded, is erroneous, as testimonies have not been appraised, in the
backdrop of the recitals of the FIR, which was got recorded, soon after the
accident and furthermore, the testimony of Balbir Singh, as such, has also
not been taken into consideration, who had also witnessed the accident.
Further also, it is submitted that in fact, the accident had been denied by
respondent No.1-Rishi Paswan and in the light of the same, learned
Tribunal, of its own, could not conclude about the manner of accident and
impute rashness and negligence, on the part of the deceased.
In view of the submissions, so made, learned counsel for the
insurance company has assiduously submitted that fault was, on the part of
the deceased, as a result whereof, even, the driver i.e. Rishi Paswan, who
faced criminal trial, vis-a-vis, the accident in question, was acquitted by
learned Magistrate vide judgment dated 06.01.2014. Much reliance is
placed upon this judgment, copy whereof, has been simply placed on record,
during the course of arguments.
2023:PHHC:161990
It should be noted that no application for additional evidence
has been filed. It should also be noted that order of acquittal was passed by
learned Magistrate, after the decision rendered by learned Tribunal, in the
present case.
But anyhow, it should be noted that the acquittal, so recorded
by learned trial Court, should not weigh much in the mind of the Court, as
the parameters of appraisal and the extent of evidence, to be brought on
record to establish the case, is entirely different in criminal proceedings, as
compared to the tortious claims/proceedings, in the motor accident claims.
It has been consistently held by the Courts that the Tribunal is
to adjudge the case, only on the basis of evidence, produced before it and not
to rely, solely on account of material, put forth, before the criminal Court, on
the basis, whereof, judgment of acquittal is passed. Of course, fundamental
facts, ought to be established. Basically, the test is whether a prudent man,
under the peculiar circumstances of a case, assume the existence of certain
facts, as true or disbelieve it.
In Municipal Committee, Jullundur v. Shri Romesh Saggi and
others AIR 1970 P&H 137, a Division Bench of this Court considered the
question:-
"Whether the judgment of a criminal court in a prosecution
arising out of a motor accident, determining the guilt or
innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned, is
conclusive and binding upon the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal dealing with a claim petition under Section 110-C of
the Motor Vehicles Act and if not, for what purposes and to
what extent can such a judgment be availed of by the parties
concerned?"
Answering the same, it was observed as under:-
2023:PHHC:161990
33. To sum up in civil actions and criminal prosecutions arising
out of the same motor accident involving bodily injury or death,
the parties may be different, the issues may not be identical, the
nature of the onus may vary and the effect of evidence may not
be the same. It will, therefore, be contrary to all fundamental
concepts of natural justice to treat the findings of the Criminal
Court as binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
assuming--but not holding--that such a Tribunal is not a Court
as defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, but partakes the
character of an Arbitrator, with most of the trappings of a
Court.
34. It will, therefore, be opposed to fundamental canons of
justice and public policy to treat the judgments of the criminal
Court binding on a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, trying a
claim arising out of a motor accident involving injury or death.
The judgment of the Criminal Court, can at the most, be used
only for the purpose and to the extent indicated in Section 43 of
the Evidence Act.
35. For the reasons recorded in OUT separate judgments, we
answer the question referred to us in the following manner, and
direct that this appeal will now go back to the learned Single
Judge for disposal on merits in accordance with law:--
"The Judgment of a Criminal Court in a prosecution
arising out of a motor accident, determining the guilt or
innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned, is
neither conclusive nor binding on the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunals, dealing with a claim petition under Section 110-C of
the Motor Vehicles Act, and its findings as to the guilt or
otherwise of the driver are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of
the trial on merits of the claim petition before the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal. Such judgment can however, be
relevant only for the purpose and to the extent specified in
Section 43 of the Evidence Act."
In Krishan S/o Mangiram v. Tarawati Widow and Others 2011
(3) PLR 29, it was held that a criminal Court's judgment acquitting a driver
would have no relevance in a case before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will
consider the issue of negligence on the basis of the evidence adduced before
it, uninfluenced by the fact of the pendency of the criminal case or the
acquittal therein. It was observed as herein given:-
2023:PHHC:161990
"3. It is also stated that in the criminal case the witnesses
contradicted themselves in their versions to what they stated
before the Tribunal. This cannot make the position better, for, a
criminal Court's judgement acquitting a driver would have no
relevance in a case before the Tribunal. The standards of proof
of a criminal case are different from tortious claims for accident
victims that are required to be established before the Tribunal
and the Tribunal will consider the issue of negligence by the
evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by the fact of
pendency of the criminal case or acquittal given by the criminal
Court. It will be relevant no more than the fact that a criminal
case had been registered and that it had concluded before the
criminal Court. It cannot be used for any other purpose, unless
it is a case of conviction rendered on admission before the
criminal Court where the conviction by the criminal Court on
an issue of negligence will have immense value before the
Tribunal."
In The General Manager, Bihar Road Transport Corporation v.
Smt. Uma Rani Behura and others 1998 WBLR 344 , a Division Bench of
the Calcutta High Court held that a judgment of acquittal in a criminal case,
is admissible in a civil matter, only for the purpose of showing that a
criminal case was initiated against some persons and the result of such
criminal case. But the findings of the criminal Court are not binding on the
civil case. It was observed as herein given:-
"7. A judgment of acquittal passed in a criminal case is
admissible in evidence in a civil matter only for the purpose of
showing that a criminal case was initiated against some persons
and the result of such criminal case. It is now well settled
principle of law that the findings of a criminal Court are not
binding on the Civil Court although the converse is true."
In Hem Ram and Another v. Krishan Chand and Another
2015(9) R.C.R (Civil) 311, it was held by the Himachal Pradesh High Court
that it is settled position that while a conviction recorded by the Criminal
Court is enough to hold that the driver had driven the vehicle rashly and
2023:PHHC:161990
negligently, but his acquittal would be no ground to dismiss the claim
petitions. It was observed as herein given:-
"28. The question is - whether the findings recorded by the
Criminal Court can be made basis for holding that the driver
has not driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and the
deceased/injured were gratuitous passengers?
29. It is beaten law of land that if conviction is recorded by the
Criminal Court, that is the best ground to hold that the driver
had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently, but, if the driver
earns acquittal, that cannot be a ground for dismissal of the
claim petitions."
It is indeed trite to state that while finding of a civil Court is
binding on the criminal Court, the finding of a criminal court, could not and
should not influence the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is to adjudge
the case, on the basis of the evidence produced before it and not on the basis
of the findings, solely recorded by the criminal court, though the same may
put the Tribunal, on some caution for scrutiny purposes.
Thus, there is requirement of independent appraisal of the evidence, as
coming forth, before the Tribunal. The mere acquittal of the driver of the
offending vehicle in a criminal case, cannot weigh against the evidence and
the manner of appreciation, made by the Tribunal, keeping in view that the
standard of proof required, being different in the two proceedings.
Moreover, in the present case, the judgment of acquittal was
passed, after the decision rendered by learned Tribunal. In the light of the
same, the acquittal, ipso facto, does not sustain the submission of false
manner of accident put forth and the role assigned to Rishi Paswan, more
particularly, when Rishi Paswan, in the written statement, has denied the
accident in toto.
2023:PHHC:161990
In the light of the aforesaid, it should be noted that it is
categoric claim of the appellant-claimants that the accident had taken place,
due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor bearing registration No.PB-
25A-3585. Though, learned Tribunal had made reference to the cross-
examination of PW-1 Jasbir Singh, eye witness, in bits and pieces, but
however, has not considered the recitals of the affidavit, wherein, he has
categorically stated about the accident having been caused, when the
deceased turned towards right side and driver of the tractor i.e. respondent
No.1, increased the speed of the tractor and turned the same, towards right
side. In the affidavit, he has also categorically stated that due to this, the
offending vehicle, struck with the motorcycle of the deceased and the tractor
trolley, ran over Amritpal Singh and his chest was crushed and it broken the
motorcycle of the deceased. Not only this, even, silent sweep was given to
the testimony of PW-2 Balbir Singh, who is father of the deceased and who
had also witnessed the accident. His version, as spelt out in the affidavit, is
also in consonance with the pleaded version of the appellants-claimants.
Furthermore, it should be taken note of that soon after the
accident, PW-1 Jasvir Singh had got recorded the FIR, which has been
proved as Ex.P1. It was got recorded with promptitude, which also rules out
the chances of putting forth a false version of the manner of taking place of
the accident. If it be so, as concluded by learned Tribunal, then also, it was
required on the part of the respondents to lead sufficient evidence, to rebut
the version of the appellants-claimants. In fact, Rishi Paswan, has stepped
into witness box as RW-1 and his affidavit is Ex.RA. Therein, he has
categorically stated that he has been falsely involved in a false case to get
2023:PHHC:161990
the claim. Nowhere, he admitted about the accident or disputed about the
manner of taking place of the same. In view of the recitals of the written
statement of respondents No.1 and 2 and the testimony of RW-1 Rishi
Paswan, if the manner of the accident was disputed, it was open for the
respondents, further to have examined the Investigating Officer, who
conducted the investigation of the criminal case and presented the challan
before learned trial Court.
Definitely, from the evidence, coming forth, it stands
established that respondent No.1-Rishi Paswan was facing trial before the
criminal Court, when the evidence was adduced in the present case.
However, no such, steps have been taken, either by respondents No.1 and 2
or by the insurance company. Things would have been different, had the
Investigating Officer, come forth and deposed about the manner of taking
place of the accident, but however, no steps have been taken.
Learned Tribunal, while making reference to the cross-
examination of PW-1 Jasvir Singh had observed that the tractor was on the
metal road and the motorcycle was on katcha portion of the road and on this
account, it concluded about the deceased having tried to overtake the tractor
from the left side, which was wrongly done, as the overtaking could be from
the right side and also while blowing horn and warning respondent No.1,
about his going to overtake the tractor and further also, to have turned
reasonably ahead of the tractor trolley, to avoid the accident. However, these
observations are erroneous. Simply, because of the placing of the vehicles,
after the accident, does not ipso facto, lead to the conclusion, about rashness
and negligence, on the part of a person, who drove the motorcycle, which
2023:PHHC:161990
was on the katcha portion, more particularly, when respondent No.1-Rishi
Paswan, did not admit about the fact of accident and disputed only about the
involvement in the accident and the role assigned to him.
In the light of testimonies of two eye witnesses, coming forth
and in view of the recitals of the FIR as well as challan, having presented
against respondent No.1-Rishi Paswan, it do amply stand established about
the rashness and negligence, on the part of respondent No.1, while driving
the tractor trolley, which caused the accident.
Faced with the aforesaid conclusion, learned counsel for the
insurance company has submitted that in any case, there was contributory
negligence, on the part of the deceased. However, the aforesaid submission
is also bereft of merits. To prove the contributory negligence, there must be
cogent evidence. In the instant case, there is no specific evidence to prove
that the accident had taken place, due to rash and negligent of deceased
motorcyclist. In the absence of such evidence, when there is total denial of
the accident, on the part of the driver of tractor, this plea of contributory
negligence, as such, does not stand established.
Thus, in the light of the aforesaid observations, the findings of
learned Tribunal are hereby reversed and it is concluded about the accident
to have taken place, due to rash and negligent driving, on the part of
respondent No.1-Rishi Paswan, while driving the tractor.
Now, comes the question, with regard to the working upon the
compensation, to be granted to the appellants-claimants.
As already observed aforesaid, the compensation has been
worked upon by learned Tribunal, but however, in view of the finding
2023:PHHC:161990
recorded on issue No.1, with regard to rashness and negligence, the claim
petition was dismissed. However, the compensation, so worked upon, by
learned Tribunal calls for re-computation, as per settled prevalent law.
Besides, Balbir Singh, father of the deceased, deposing about
the avocation followed by the deceased and the extent of his earnings, the
appellants-claimants have also examined PW-3 Manjit Singh, Personal
Officer of M/s Ralson India Ltd., Ludhiana, who on the basis of the record,
deposed about deceased Amritpal Singh to be employee of their company
and was being paid Rs.4,106/- per month. He also proved on record the
attendance register as well as salary certificate, which clearly establish about
the deceased to be earning Rs.4,016/- per month, at the relevant time.
However, learned Tribunal had made an addition of 50%, on the
count of 'future prospects', but, considering the age of the deceased to be 22
years, at the relevant time, as per National Insurance Company Limited vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, 2017(4) RCR (Civil) 1009, addition ought to be
made to the extent of 40%. As such, after making addition of 40%, the
earnings of the deceased comes to be Rs.5622/- per month.
Considering the marital status of the deceased, learned Tribunal
had appropriately made deduction to the extent of 50%, on the ground of
personal expenses and thus, the dependency is worked upon as Rs.2,811/-
per month, annual whereof, comes to be Rs.33,732/-. As per Smt.Sarla
Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77 ,
appropriate and suitable multiplier, to be applied is '18', as applied by
learned Tribunal and by applying the same, the loss of dependency, works
out to be Rs.6,07,176/-.
2023:PHHC:161990
Besides the same, the amounts are to be paid under the
conventional heads, such like, loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral
expenses as held in Pranay Sethi's case (supra). However, in 'Magma
General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and
others, 2018 (18) SCC 130', the concept of consortium, has been dilated in
detail and the dependents were entitled to compensation, on the count of
'parental', 'spousal' and 'filial' consortium.
In consonance with the observations made in Pranay Sethi's
case (supra), as per clause of addition of 10% under the heads of 'loss of
consortium', 'loss of estate' and 'funeral expenses', after every three years
from the passing of the judgment, at present, the amount payable, on the
count of 'loss of consortium' comes to be Rs.48,400/- to each of the
appellant-claimant and for the 'loss of estate' as well as 'funeral expenses',
it is Rs.18,150/-, on each count.
Considering the same, the compensation payable to dependents,
on account of death of Amritpal Singh, is re-computated, as herein given:-
Loss of dependency : Rs.6,07,176/-
Loss of consortium : Rs.96,800/-
Loss of estate : Rs.18,150/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.18,150/-
Total : Rs.7,40,276/-
On the amount of the compensation i.e. Rs.7,40,276/-, the
appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the interest, at the rate of 6% per
annum, from the date of filing of the present appeal, till realization of the
enhanced amount of compensation. Respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver,
2023:PHHC:161990
owner and insurer of the offending vehicle, are hereby held liable jointly and
severally, to pay the compensation.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal stands
allowed.
December 16, 2023 (ARCHANA PURI)
Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether reportable Yes/No
