Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1473 (HP)

Rajinder Kumar v. Anup Verma

2015-10-09

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR

body2015
JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 29th October, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P. (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 129-MAC/2 of 2005, titled Rajinder Kumar versus Anup Verma and another, whereby the claim petition came to be dismissed (for short, the ‘impugned award’). Brief facts facts: 2. Claimant Rajinder Kumar became victim of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by Anup Verma, driver, while driving Alto Car bearing registration No. HP-18A-1034, rashly and negligently, on 11.09.2005, at about 5.45. p.m., near Nehli on Nahan-Renuka Ji road, which collided with the motor cycle being driven by the claimant and caused injuries to him. The claimant filed the claim petition, seeking compensation to the tune of `3,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 17.06.2006:- “1. Whether the petitioner Rajinder Kumar sustained injuries in an accident on 11-9-2005 at about 5.45 PM near village Nelhi when his motor-cycle was hit by Alto Car bearing registration No. HP-18A-1034 being owned and driven by respondent No. 1 Anoop Verm in a rash and negligent manner, as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 was not possessed valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? …OPR-2 4. Whether the insurance company is not liable to pay the claim as alleged? …OPR-2 5. Whether the petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No. 1, as alleged? ….OPR-2 6. Relief.” 5. The Tribunal has neither discussed issue No. 2 nor returned findings. It has also not returned findings on issues No. 1, 3 to 5. 6. Issues No. 1, 3 to 5 are dependant on the findings returned on issue No. 1. 7. The claimant has specifically pleaded in the claim petition that driver Anup Verma has driven Alto Car bearing registration No. HP-18A-1034, rashly and negligently, on 11.09.2005, at about 5.45. It has also not returned findings on issues No. 1, 3 to 5. 6. Issues No. 1, 3 to 5 are dependant on the findings returned on issue No. 1. 7. The claimant has specifically pleaded in the claim petition that driver Anup Verma has driven Alto Car bearing registration No. HP-18A-1034, rashly and negligently, on 11.09.2005, at about 5.45. p.m., near Nehli on Nahan-Renuka Ji road and hit the said car with the motor- cycle which was being driven by the claimant and caused injuries to him. 8. I have gone through the evidence led by the parties. It appears that the Tribunal has dealt with the claim petition like a civil suit. 9. In terms of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short ‘the Act’, prima-facie, claim petitions are to be decided summarily, as early as possible and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, for short ‘CPC’ are not applicable. Only some of the provisions are applicable, as per the rules applicable. 10. While going through the pleadings, the claimants have prima-facie proved that driver Anup Verma has driven the car, rashly and negligently, on the said date. FIR No. 219/2005, dated 19.10.2005 under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against driver of the car, i.e Anup Verma, at Police Station Nahan. He was facing trial before the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nahan in Criminal Case No. 61/2 of 2006, right from 31st December, 2005 to 28th July, 2008, was acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt. It is apt to reproduce para 21 of the judgment passed in the aforesaid criminal case, herein:- “21. In view of the contradictions and infirmities as referred to above, I have no hesitation to hold that the evidence led by the prosecution are not sufficient to warrant conviction of the accused in the present case. Therefore, the accused is entitled to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is decided against the prosecution.” 11. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence against the driver-accused in the criminal case and dismissed the claim petition. The findings recorded by the said Court in the criminal case, cannot be a ground to defeat the rights of the claimant. Accordingly, Point No. 1 is decided against the prosecution.” 11. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence against the driver-accused in the criminal case and dismissed the claim petition. The findings recorded by the said Court in the criminal case, cannot be a ground to defeat the rights of the claimant. Even, if the driver is acquitted in the criminal proceedings, that may not be a ground for dismissal of the claim petitions. 12. The Tribunal has to decide the claim petition summarily. The standard of proof required in criminal case is not required in claim petition. And even the proof by preponderance of probabilities is not required in the claim petition. 13. The Tribunal had to return prima-facie findings whether driver Anup Verma was driving the offending car, rashly and negligently, has failed to do so. 14. Having said so, the case merits to be remanded with the direction to decide the same afresh. Ordered accordingly. 15. Viewed thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is set aside, as indicated above. 16. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 02.11.2015. 17. Registry to send the record of the case alongwith a copy of this judgment forthwith so as to reach the Tribunal below well before the date fixed.