( 2025:HHC:6741 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 105 of 2014 Date of decision: 18th March, 2025 Sanjeev Kumar …Appellant Versus Durga Dass & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner. Mr. Parv Sharma and Mr. Shekhar Badola, Advocates. For the Respondent: Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.3. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by appellant/claimant against the dismissal of his claim petition preferred by him under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 whereby he had prayed for granting compensation of Rs.5 lac or more along with interest on account of injuries sustained by him in a roadside accident taken place on 16th June, 2005 at 2.45 PM at Thain-da-Mor near Rangas on Hamirpur-Nadaun National Highway. 2 It was the case of appellant/claimant that he was driving a motor cycle bearing No. HP-22A-0250 from Hamirpur towards Nadaun ( 2025:HHC:6741 ) and when he reached Thain-da-Mor at about 2.45 PM ahead of Jol Sappar, he was hit by bus No. HP-36-5325 coming from the opposite side being driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently. 3 Claim of appellant/claimant that on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, who was employee of respondent No.1, he had sustained injuries on his left leg and right hand and thereafter, he immediately rushed to Regional Hospital, Hamirpur where he remained admitted w.e.f. 16.6.2005 to 17.6.2005 and thereafter he was referred to PGI Chandigarh and he remained there from 17.06.2005 to 21.06.2005. Further that he had to undergo surgery at PGI and he had spent Rs. 30,000/- on his treatment, transportation and medical expenses. 4 Respondent No.3 is Insurance Company which had insured the bus owned by respondent No.1 being driven by respondent No.2. 5 Appellant/claimant had claimed peculiar and non-peculiar damages under various heads to the tune of Rs.5 lacs from the respondents. 6 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had framed the following issues for determination and adjudication of the Claim Petition:- 1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. HP-36-5325 by its driver, respondent No.2, Ravinder Kumar? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 2 ( 2025:HHC:6741 ) 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPRs 4. Whether the petitioner is estopped from filing the present petition? OPR 1 & 2 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied without fitness certificate and route permit, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPR3 6. Whether driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time to accident? OPR-3 7. Relief. 7 Stand of respondents is that appellant/claimant himself was rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle and, therefore, he was not entitled for any claim particularly when the accident took place in the year 2005 and judgment of acquittal was passed on 26.11.2007 and claim petition was preferred on 5.3.2011. It clearly indicates that appellant/claimant is taking the chance of getting the compensation but without any material available in his favour rather material is adverse to the claim of appellant/claimant. 8 It is also an admitted fact that FIR No. 111 of 2005 dated 16.06.2005 was registered against appellant/claimant under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code in Police Station Nadaun, District Hamirpur H.P. However after facing the trial, appellant/claimant was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadaun, District Hamirpur HP vide judgment dated 26.11.2007 in Criminal Case No. 108-II of 2005. 3 ( 2025:HHC:6741 ) 9 After going through the impugned award and the record, it is apparent that till the year 2011 no proceedings were ever initiated by the appellant/claimant against respondents No.1 or 2 for alleged rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 causing injuries to the appellant/claimant. Appellant/claimant was treated for injuries received by him in June, 2005. The treatment of appellant/claimant was over by June, 2005, but he remained silent. Thereafter, he faced the trial and he was acquitted in the year 2007. Neither after getting the treatment from hospital nor even after his acquittal he preferred any petition claiming compensation for alleged rash and negligent act of respondent No.2. 10 Though it has been stated by appellant/claimant that a false case was registered against him but it is very strange that despite that he kept mum and did not file any complaint against respondents No.1 and 2 for lodging a false FIR against him and to initiate criminal or civil proceedings against them. 11 From the conduct of appellant/claimant, it is evident that filing of claim petition was an afterthought to take chance to get the compensation for alleged rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 12 It has been rightly observed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal that standard of proof required to prove the guilt of an accused in criminal case is of higher degree as compared to the standard of proof required in civil cases/claim petitions and therefore, acquittal of appellant/claimant is of no help to him as acquittal of appellant/claimant 4 ( 2025:HHC:6741 ) from the criminal case wherein he was charged for rash and negligent driving. Acquittal of appellant/claimant does not mean that he was not rash or negligent in any manner and/or it was respondent No.2 who was rash or negligent with regard to civil liability to pay compensation particularly when no proceedings either criminal or civil were ever initiated against respondent No.2 except present claim petition which was also initiated in the year 2011 after 6 years of accident and 4 years of acquittal in criminal case. 13 It may be true that at the time of preferring the claim petition, there was no limitation period prescribed for filing the claim petition, but it does not mean that a person, who has suffered injuries in the year 2005 and remained under treatment for a period of less than one month, can approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at any time of his life and allege rash or negligent driving of opposite party. There is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove even on preponderance of probability that respondent No.2 was rash or negligent in any manner in driving the bus and, thus, none of the respondents is liable to pay compensation to claimant/appellant. 14 In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, irregularity or perversity in the findings returned by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly appeal is dismissed. 5 ( 2025:HHC:6741 ) Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 18th March, 2025 (MS) 6