FAO-85-2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-85-2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.01.2025 National Insurance Company Limited ......Appellant Vs. Pyari Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL) 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 05.10.2006 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in Claim Petition No.52-T of 15.06.2004, whereby the respondents/claimants were granted the compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Tarsem Singh. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.05.2001, Darshan Singh and Tarsem Singh (since both deceased) were going from Rajpura to their village Ram Nagar by paddling their respective bicycles on the left side of the road. At about 10:00 P.M., when they crossed SYL canal in the area VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-85-2007 (O&M) -2- of Village Jansala, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala and were about 1.5 kilometers from SYL canal towards Ram Nagar on Rajpura to Chandigarh road, a truck bearing registration No.HR-01-GA-1002 being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came from behind and hit both the cyclists. As a result thereof, appellant/claimant suffered multiple serious and grievous injuries and died on the spot. In this regard, FIR No.107 dated 10.05.2001 was registered under Sections 279, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, at Police Station Banur, against respondent No.2. 3. Upon notice of the claim petition, the respondents appeared and filed their separate replies denying the factum of accident/compensation. 4. Appellants/claimants filed their rejoinder to the written reply reiterating their averments as taken in the claim petition. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1) Whether Tarsem Singh died in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 09.05.2001 on account of rash and negligent driving of truck bearing No.HR-01- GA-1002 driven by Ashok Kumar, respondent No.2? OPP 2) If Issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to seek compensation, if so to what extent and from which of the respondents? OPP 3) Whether respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar did not possess any valid and effective driving license at the time of accident? OPP. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-85-2007 (O&M) -3- 4) Whether the driver of truck No.HR-01-GA-1002 was not having valid RC and fitness certificate and route permit at the time of accident? OPR 5. Relief.” 6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of death of Tarsem Singh. Hence, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal challenging the award dated 05.10.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT 7. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contends that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided the award and has granted the compensation to the respondents/claimants, since in the FIR, name of the driver and number of the truck was not mentioned and the driver was acquitted by the Court in the criminal case on the ground that eye- witness did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the respondents/claimants were not entitled to any compensation. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and perused the whole record of this case. 9. A perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has categorically dealt with this argument. The absence of the registration number of the offending vehicle and the name of its driver in the First Information Report (FIR) does not render the case unsustainable. It is a settled principle of law that an FIR is not intended to be an exhaustive VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-85-2007 (O&M) -4- account of all facts and circumstances of the case. Its primary purpose is to set the investigative process in motion, and further details often emerge during the course of a thorough investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer. 10. In the instant case, the identity of the driver and the registration number of the offending vehicle were duly established during the investigation, particularly upon the recording of the statement of PW-4 Harkishan Singh, who testified that the driver of the offending truck stopped the vehicle immediately after the accident, disembarked, and provided his particulars, including the truck’s registration number, to the witness. However, upon seeing the deceased victims, Darshan Singh and Tarsem Singh, the driver, identified as respondent No. 2-Ashok Kumar, fled the scene with the vehicle. PW-4, Harkishan Singh, subsequently identified the driver both at the scene of the accident and in court, thereby reinforcing the chain of evidence. 11. So far as the issue whether judgments of Criminal Courts are binding on Civil Courts or Motor Accident Claims Tribunals is no longer res integra, as it has been conclusively settled by various High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in C.M.A. No.1369 of 2017 titled as ‘TNSTC v. P. Shanthi and Others’ dated 28.04.2017. In this case, after a detailed examination of relevant decisions, the Madras High Court held as under:- VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-85-2007 (O&M) -5- “Mere acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically lead to the inference that there was no negligence on the part of the driver (RW1) of the bus. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is distinct from that in claims before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In such claims, the test is based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.” 12. In Vinobabai and Others v. K.S.R.T.C. and Another (1979 ACJ 282), the High Court of Karnataka, addressing this issue, observed as under:- “When a driver is convicted in a criminal trial, such conviction becomes admissible in civil proceedings and constitutes prima facie evidence of culpable negligence. Conversely, the acquittal of the driver in a criminal case does not necessarily establish, even prima facie, that the driver was not negligent, as the threshold for establishing criminal culpability is significantly higher than that required for civil liability.” 13. In N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. v. M. Karumai Ammal and Others (AIR 1980 SC 1354), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a case where a bus hit an overhanging high-tension wire, resulting in multiple fatalities. Although the driver was acquitted in the criminal trial on the premise that the incident was an act of God, the court rejected the plea that the acquittal should influence the civil proceedings, held as under:- VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-85-2007 (O&M) -6- “The standard for proving culpable rashness under Section 304A, IPC, is far more stringent than the negligence required to establish liability under tort law. The Tribunal rightly held the driver liable, as the facts demonstrated negligence on his part, notwithstanding the criminal court’s acquittal.” 14. In Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Jarnail Singh and Others (2009 ACJ 2807), the Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterated the principle by holding that:- “The acquittal of the driver in a criminal trial does not have a binding effect on the findings of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding negligence. The Tribunal is required to independently determine negligence based on the principle of preponderance of probabilities.” 15. From the above referred to decisions, it is clear that the acquittal in a criminal case does not lead to an automatic inference that there was no negligence on the part of the driver / rider of the vehicle. Further, the acquittal of the driver in the criminal case will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 16. In the present case, the respondents/claimants’ evidence remains uncontested and unchallenged. Respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle, failed to enter into the witness box to rebut the allegations or subject himself to cross-examination. The eye-witnesses, PW-3, Kulbir Singh, and PW-4, Harkishan Singh, have provided cogent, credible, and consistent testimony establishing that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-85-2007 (O&M) -7- driving of truck No. HR-3191A-1002 by respondent No. 2. The resulting accident tragically claimed the lives of Darshan Singh and Tarsem Singh on 09.05.2001. 17. Given the unrebutted evidence and the well-established principles of law, there is no infirmity in the findings of the learned Tribunal. The award is legally sound and is, therefore, upheld. 18. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. 19. Appellant-Insurance Company is hereby directed to disburse the current scheduled fee to Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate, pursuant to the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in FAO-1682-2007 within a period of 20 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. 20. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 21.01.2025 Virrendra Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2025.01.29 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document