Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 738 (GAU)

United India Insurance Co Ltd v. H. Sipaw

2020-11-03

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, which insured the truck (Tata Ace). Also heard Ms. H. Kristazi, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants and Mr. Roshan Subedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8/Insurance Company, which insured the Scooty driven by the deceased. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 9. 2. As per the Order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Court, notice was deemed to be complete against the respondent No. 6, the owner of the truck (Tata Ace). Respondent No. 7 is the husband of the respondent No.1, father of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and sister of the respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 7 is the person, who died in the vehicular accident and in respect of which the claim petition had been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 before the MACT, Aizawl. Respondent No. 9 is the Driver of the Truck (Tata Ace), which dashed into the Scooty driven by the deceased respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 6 is the owner of the truck (Tata Ace). 3. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company, which insured the Tata Ace, challenging the compensation amount of Rs. 78,60,950/- awarded by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 12/2017, vide Judgment & Award dated 26.04.2019, in favour of the respondents/claimants No. 1 to 5. 4. The brief facts of the case is that the deceased S. Vanchhua, age 39 years was driving a Scooty on 01.03.2013, when one Tata Ace bearing Registration No. MZ-03 4262 driven by the respondent No. 9 dashed the Scooty from behind, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The pillion rider P. Hama survived the accident. 5. A claim petition was submitted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The learned Tribunal after recording the evidence of the parties came to a finding that the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace, when it dashed against the Scooty. As the deceased was a regular Government Teacher, working in Govt. Middle School, Meisatla, Siaha, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 78,60,950/- to the claimants, the break-up of which, is as follows:- "As such the compensation is as follows:- (1) Annual income = Rs. As the deceased was a regular Government Teacher, working in Govt. Middle School, Meisatla, Siaha, the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 78,60,950/- to the claimants, the break-up of which, is as follows:- "As such the compensation is as follows:- (1) Annual income = Rs. 37980x12 = 455760 (2) Addition of 50% of future prospect= Rs. 455760x50 = 227880 100 (3) Loss of income = 455760+227880x15x3 = 7690950 4 (4) Funeral Expense = Rs. 15,000/- (5) Loss of Estate= Rs. 15,000/- (6) Loss of Consortium = Rs. 40,000/ (7) Loss of expectation of life = Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Compensation Awarded= Rs. 78,60,950/- (Rupees seventy eight lakhs sixty thousand nine hundred fifty) only." The learned Tribunal also directed that Rs. 10 lakhs each should be put in fixed deposits in favour of the 3 (three) minor children of the deceased in any nationalised Bank, which could be withdrawn after the 3 (three) minor children attained majority. 6. Being aggrieved by impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.04.2019 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 12/2017, the appellant has made a challenge to the impugned Judgment & Award on the ground that rash and negligent act on the part of the Driver of the Tata Ace vehicle had not been proved. 7. Mr. Zochhuana, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are 2 (two) Police reports in respect of the above case, which are contradictory to one another. He submits that in one Police report, the cause of accident has been speculated to be due to rash and negligent act on the part of the Driver of the Tata Ace, while in the other Police report, the cause of the accident has been attributed to brake failure of the Tata Ace vehicle. The learned counsel submits that as there is no proof that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the Driver of the Tata Ace, compensation could not have been awarded under Section 166 of the M.V Act, 1988. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal could not have awarded any compensation for "loss of expectation of life", as the same is not provided for in the judgment of the Apex court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 9. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal could not have awarded any compensation for "loss of expectation of life", as the same is not provided for in the judgment of the Apex court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the learned Tribunal did not properly examine the cause of the accident, though the accident involved 2 (two) vehicles, i.e. the Tata Ace vehicle and the Scooty driven by the deceased. He submits that the compensation amount should have been equally apportioned between the 2 (two) Insurance Companies, at the rate of 50% each, i.e. between the appellant and the respondent No. 8, who is the insurer of the scooty driven by the deceased. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that no post-mortem report was submitted as evidence by any of the parties and no Doctor had given any evidence, to prove that the deceased died due to the alleged collision. He also submits that the award of 7% interest on the compensation amount by the learned Tribunal is on the higher side, keeping in view the rate of interest given by Banks to fixed deposits. He also submits that as the driver of the Tata Ace was drunk at the time of the accident, the appellant was not liable to pay compensation, as the same was a gross violation of the Insurance Policy conditions. 11. Ms. H. Kristazi, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants submits that the 2 (two) Police reports, i.e. the Enquiry Report dated 01.03.2013 and the Police Verification Report dated 23.03.2013 issued by S.I Lalsangliana of Siaha Police Station has to be read together, along with the evidence adduced by the witnesses. Also, the evidence having clearly shown that the Scooty had been hit from behind by the Tata Ace driven by the respondent No. 9, rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace had clearly been proved. She also submits that the Tata Ace vehicle, which was insured by the appellant, was a goods vehicle. Also, the evidence having clearly shown that the Scooty had been hit from behind by the Tata Ace driven by the respondent No. 9, rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace had clearly been proved. She also submits that the Tata Ace vehicle, which was insured by the appellant, was a goods vehicle. As the Tata Ace vehicle was carrying 26 (twenty six) persons at the time it hit the Scooty from behind, the same proved the fact that the Driver of the Tata Ace was rash and negligent in his action. Further, the evidence also reflects the fact that the respondent No. 9 was drunk at the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants however admits that the learned Tribunal could not have awarded compensation for loss of expectation of life, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra). 12. Mr. Roshan Subedi, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 8, i.e. the Insurance Company which insured the Scooty driven by the deceased submits that the Scooty was hit from behind by the Tata Ace vehicle, which was insured by the appellant. The Tata Ace vehicle carried 26 (twenty six) passengers despite being a goods vehicle. The above acts clearly showed that the Driver of the Tata Ace (respondent No. 9) was rash and negligent while driving the Tata Ace which hit the Scooty from behind. He, accordingly, submits that no case of contributory negligence has been made out by the appellant and as such, there was no question of the learned Tribunal apportioning any amount of the compensation amount on the respondent No. 8. 13. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 14. The Enquiry Report dated 01.03.2013 and the Police Verification Report dated 23.03.2013, both issued by S.I Lalsangliana of Siaha Police Station does not specify as to how the accident occurred. There is nothing to show in the 2 (two) reports mentioned above that the Scooty was hit from behind, though it is clear that there was a collision of some sort of the vehicles. There is nothing to show in the 2 (two) reports mentioned above that the Scooty was hit from behind, though it is clear that there was a collision of some sort of the vehicles. The Enquiry Report dated 01.03.2013 and the Police Verification Report dated 23.03.2013 state as follows:- To, The Officer In-Charge Police Station Saiha Subj:                  Enquiry Report Sir, I have the honour to submit my enquiry report regarding a vehicle collision on the outskirt of Meisatla. On today i.e. Dt. 1/3/13 @ 11:50 AM a telephonic information received from a reliable person stating that Two vehicles; Scooty B/R No. MZ-03/4262 and Tata Ace B/R No. MZ-03/3321 plying towards Tuitlawk collided on the outskirt of Meisatla. Hence, in pursuance to that information, self and party rushed to the spot for enquiry. On reaching there it was found the two vehicles collided on the main road as a result of which the Scooty second rider S. Vachhua (40) S/o S. Chohra of Meisavaih succumbed to his injury on the spot and later evacuated to Civil Hospital Saiha PME. Moreover 26 passengers of Tata Ace sustained and injury and also evacuated to Civil Hospital saiha for first aid treatment. Namely: 1. Vanlalhruaia (20) of Medical Veng 2. Lalhmingliani (56) of New Saiha 3. Lalremruati (17) of New Saiha 4. Omega Lalhminghluna (19) of Medical Veng 5. Khuangziki (47) of New Saiha 6. Ramthazuali (18) of New Saiha 7. Lalsawmzuali (14) of New Saiha 8. Malsawmsangi (18) of New Saiha 9. H. Ramliana (44) of New Saiha 10. Felicia (48) of Medical Veng 11. Lianmawia (49) of Medical Veng 12. Rev. Halai (67) of New Saiha 13. Lalchhanchhuaha (10) of New Saiha 14. Lalruatpuii (7) of New Saiha 15. Partlemi (63) of New Saiha 16. Lalduatsanga (13) of New Saiha 17 Immanuel Lalpianfeli (15) of New Saiha 18. Remsangpuii (13) of New Saiha 19 Lalhmangaihsangi (18) of Phalhrang 20. Kananparmaii (28) of Phalhrang 21. HP Haua (30) of Meisavaih 22. Lalremruati (14) of New Saiha 23. Ramdinmawia (16) of Lawngtlai 24. Lalnunpari (36) of Phalhrang 25. Jenifer Laldinpuii (12) of New Saiha-11 26. Remsangpuii (13) of New Saiha. The cause of accident seems to be due to rush and negligent driving on the part of the driver. I, therefore, request you to kindly register a case against the driver H. Ramlawma (44) S/o Rev. Ramdinmawia (16) of Lawngtlai 24. Lalnunpari (36) of Phalhrang 25. Jenifer Laldinpuii (12) of New Saiha-11 26. Remsangpuii (13) of New Saiha. The cause of accident seems to be due to rush and negligent driving on the part of the driver. I, therefore, request you to kindly register a case against the driver H. Ramlawma (44) S/o Rev. H. Halai of New Saiha E under the appropriate section of law. Received and registered Sha-PS C/No.8/13                                                                   Yours faithfully, Dt. 1/3/13 U/s-279/337/338/304(A) IPC And S.I Lalsangliana is endorsed to investigate the case SI (ZAMZAMUNG VUALNAM)                                                                                SI (LALSANGLIANA) Officer In-Charge                                                                                                     Saiha PS Police Station, Saiha POLICE VERIFICATION REPORT Dated:23/3/2013 Ref: Saiha P.S GDE 04/13 Dt. 1/03/13 @ 11:50 AM This is to acknowledged that on Dt. 1/3/2013 @ 11:50 AM one Vehicle (Tata Ace) B/R No. Mz 03-3321 driven by H. Ramlawma (44) S/o Rev. H. Halai met an accident on the outskirt of Meisatla, Saiha by dashing One Scooty B/R No. Mz-03-4262 ridden by S. Vachhua (40) S/o S. Chohra of Meisavaih. As a result of which the scooty rider died on the spot. The accident vehicle (Tata Ace) belongs to Rev. H. Halai (67) S/o Zasanga of New Saiha E. As a result of this accident, the vehicle sustained damages and 25 passengers were evacuated to Civil Hospital, Saiha for Medical treatment. It is observed that the cause of this incident seems to be brake failure of the vehicle (Tata Ace) Mz 03-3321. COUNTERSIGNED BY                                                                                                  VERIFYING OFFICER SI (ZAMZAZUNG VUALNAM) Officer In-Charge                                                                                                    SI (LALSANGLIANA) Saiha Police Station                                                                                                 Saiha Police Station 15. The evidence of one P. Hama, who was the pillion rider in the Scooty driven by the deceased, is to the effect that while they were going on the Scooty to "Tawngtaina Hmun", he saw one Tata Ace carrying many passengers parked on the roadside. Sometime after passing them, he heard passengers from the Tata Ace screaming from behind "you are going to hit them". As P. Hama looked back, he saw the Tata Ace which was coming at a very high speed dash against them. P. Hama (pillion rider) fell on the roadside and he thought that the driver of the Tata Ace would stop the vehicle. However, the Tata Ace ran over the body of the deceased. Further, the driver of the Tata Ace did not blow his horn before hitting them from behind. P. Hama (pillion rider) fell on the roadside and he thought that the driver of the Tata Ace would stop the vehicle. However, the Tata Ace ran over the body of the deceased. Further, the driver of the Tata Ace did not blow his horn before hitting them from behind. P. Hama (witness) also stated that the incident occurred around 11:00 A.M. While the deceased died on the spot, he was hospitalized in Siaha Civil Hospital. In his evidence, P. Hama has also stated that on a day after the accident, the sister of the respondent No. 9 had visited him and told him that respondent No. 9 had been consuming alcohol since early in the morning on the date of the accident. The evidence of P. Hama (witness) was not disputed or rebutted during cross-examination by the appellant or any other party to the case. 16. The evidence of S.I Lalsangliana, O.C Siaha Police Station, who made the Enquiry Report and Verification Report, is to the effect that the respondent No. 9 was careless and negligent while driving. Also no brake failure on the Tata Ace could have occurred on the road. The road where the accident occurred was wide and smooth. The witness also stated that the Tata Ace dashed against the scooty which was running ahead of it. He also stated that in his Verification Report dated 23.03.2013, he had stated that the accident seemed to be due to brake failure, which was based on the MVI Report dated 20.03.2013. However, after thorough investigation, the same was clarified in the chargesheet dated 21.04.2013 filed in the criminal case against the respondent No. 9, that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the Tata Ace. The weather was also clear at the relevant time. S.I Lalsangliana also deposed that the respondent No. 9 drove the vehicle in an excessive speed. 17. The evidence adduced by the Branch Manager of the Appellant's Aizawl Office shows that there was no denial of the fact that the deceased died as per the evidence given by P. Hama (pillion rider) and S.I Lalsangliana. The basic stand taken by the Appellant's witness is that there was a breach of the condition of the Insurance Policy, as the Tata Ace, being a goods vehicle was carrying more persons than the permitted 2 (two) persons. The basic stand taken by the Appellant's witness is that there was a breach of the condition of the Insurance Policy, as the Tata Ace, being a goods vehicle was carrying more persons than the permitted 2 (two) persons. Accordingly, the Insurance Company had no liability towards the claimants. Also, as per the Accident Inspection Report dated 20.03.2013 prepared by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Police Verification Report dated 23.03.2013, the cause of the accident was due to brake failure, which implied that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No. 9. The evidence of the appellant's witness does not take away the liability of the appellant against the claim made in respect of the deceased, as the deceased was a third party vis- -vis the owner of the Tata Ace. The appellant can be said to have no liability towards any claim made by gratuitous passengers, as the carrying of passengers in a goods vehicle would be in breach of the conditions of the insurance policy. However, the appellant cannot escape its liability towards the claim made in respect of a third party, which in this case is the deceased. However, for a claim under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 to succeed, rash and negligent act on the part of the owner/driver of the vehicle has to be proved before compensation can be awarded, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Reshma Kumar vs. Madan Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 65 . 18. On perusal of the records, it is found that there is no post-mortem report in respect of the deceased. However, the fact that the deceased died due to the Tata Ace hitting the Scooty from behind is not denied or rebutted by the appellant. 19. On perusing the impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.04.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 12/2017, it is seen that P. Hama (witness) had admitted, during cross-examination, that he stood as a witness in connection with Criminal Trial No. 10/2013 under Section 279/304A/337/338 IPC read with Section 192A/194 of the MV Act, 1988 (State Vs. H. Ramlawma), which was the criminal case filed by the Police against the driver of the Tata Ace. H. Ramlawma), which was the criminal case filed by the Police against the driver of the Tata Ace. P. Hama (witness) in the latter part of paragraph No. 7 of the impugned Judgment and Award admitted the suggestion that the statement which was given by him before the learned Tribunal and the statement which was given before the Court of the CJM, Siaha were different. 20. On reading the above observation of the learned Tribunal, this Court called for the records of Criminal Trial No. 10/2013 from the Court of the CJM, Siaha and found that the basic difference in the evidence given by P. Hama in the criminal proceeding and in this case was that he did not mention that the Scooty was hit from behind. On perusing the Judgment & Order dated 03.12.2013 passed by the Court of the CJM, Siaha in Criminal Trial No. 10/2013, this Court finds that the driver of the Tata Ace (respondent No. 9) had been acquitted of the charge under Section 279/304A/337/338 IPC read with Section 192A/194 of the MV Act, 1988. The Court of the CJM, Siaha in it's Judgment & Order dated 03.12.2013, passed in Criminal Trial No. 10/2013, had held that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the respondent No. 9, as the MVI report dated 11.03.2013 had revealed that the cause of the accident was due to brake failure, which was beyond the control of the respondent No. 9. 21. In the case in hand, the evidence of the witnesses shows that the accident occurred on a straight, wide and smooth road. The Tata Ace had hit the Scooty from behind and no horn had been sounded by the driver of the Tata Ace, prior to hitting the Scooty, so as to give a chance to the deceased Scooty driver to avoid being hit by the Tata Ace. There is also no evidence adduced by any party to show that the driver of the Tata Ace had tried to avoid hitting the Scooty from behind by stopping or swerving his vehicle etc. As the driver of the Tata Ace would have clearly seen the Scooty in front of him, the accident having occurred at 11:00 AM in the morning, it can be inferred that the driver was rash and negligent while driving. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. As the driver of the Tata Ace would have clearly seen the Scooty in front of him, the accident having occurred at 11:00 AM in the morning, it can be inferred that the driver was rash and negligent while driving. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Phelishsa Bakai, (2006) 1 GauLT 282 , the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph No. 25 has held as follows:- "25. We may, however, point out that the word 'negligence', in the realm of tortious liability, such as the one arising out of motor vehicular accidents, connotes that though liable to take care, the driver did not take care and committed thereby breach of his legal duty towards the injured or the dead. The test whether a driver was or was not negligent is the inference which a reasonable or prudent man, in the fact situation, would draw. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (1998) AIR SC 640 has stated that test of breach of common law duty is again the test of a reasonable or prudent man in the practical fact situation. In M.S. Grewal and another v. Deep Chand Sood and others, (2001) 7 JT 159 SC, Supreme Court defined 'negligence' thus, "Negligence in common parlance means and implies failure to exercise due care, expected of a reasonable prudent person. It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness or inadvertence by which the negligent partly is unaware of the results, which may follow from his act. Negligence is thus a breach of duty or lack of proper care in doing something in short, it is want of attention and doing of something which a prudent and a reasonable man would not do (vide Black's Law Dictionary)." 22. Though the Court of the CJM Siaha has acquitted the driver of the Tata Ace from the charge of rash and negligent act in Criminal Trial No. 10/2013, on the ground that the cause of the accident was due to brake failure, the evidence adduced reveals the fact that the driver of the Tata Ace did not apply his horn, prior to dashing the Scooty from behind. There can be no justification for dashing a Scooty from behind as the Scooty was travelling ahead of the Tata Ace and would have been clearly visible to the respondent No. 9. Further, S.I. Lalsangliana, O.C. Siaha Police Station in his evidence has stated that though he had based his report dated 23.03.2013 on the basis of the MVI report dated 20.03.2013, after thorough investigation he had come to a subsequent finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace. Assuming that the accident occurred solely due to brake failure of the Tata Ace, this Court is of the view that it was the duty of the driver and owner of the vehicle to take care that the vehicle was in good working condition. The same not having been done and in addition, the driver having carried 26 passengers in a goods vehicle which permitted carriage of only two occupants, clearly goes to show that there was rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace. Omission to take requisite care for the use of the vehicle by its driver and owner would definitely amount to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver and owner of the vehicle. Although the Accident Inspection Report prepared by the MVI states that the cause of the accident was due to brake failure and the appellant's Verification Report dated 23.03.2013 states that the cause of the accident seems to be due to brake failure, it does not mean that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace, due to the reasons stated earlier. The Court of the CJM, Siaha in Crl. Trial No. 10/2013 has held that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver, only on account of the MVI Report which states that accident was due to brake failure, without considering the fact that the Scooty was hit from behind, without the respondent No. 9 taking any evasive action to avoid the accident. Also the fact that the truck was carrying 26 passengers was in itself a rash and negligent act. Also the fact that the truck was carrying 26 passengers was in itself a rash and negligent act. In any event, the fact that the respondent No. 9 (driver of the Tata Ace) did not even try to avoid hitting the Scooty, which was travelling in front of him, clearly shows that the same is illustrative of the principles of res ipsa loquitur. 23. Besides what has been stated above, various Judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts have held that acquittal of a driver in a criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the MACT, as to whether the driver was negligent or not in causing the accident. In this respect, para 46 & 47 of the Judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case of Jagdish vs. Rahul Bus Service and Ors., (2016) ACJ 1671 (FAO No. 524/2007), which is is reproduced below:- "46. It is also profitable to reproduce relevant portion of para 8 of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Karnataka in a case titled Vinobabai and others versus K.S.R.T.C. and another, (1979) ACJ 282 : MANU/KA/0190/1978 : "8. ........... Thus, the law is settled that when the driver is convicted in a regular trial before the Criminal Court, the fact that he is convicted becomes admissible in evidence in a civil proceeding and it becomes prima facie evidence that the driver was culpably negligent in causing the accident. The converse is not true; because the driver is acquitted in a criminal case arising out of the accident, it is not established even prima facie that the driver is not negligent, as a higher degree of culpability is required to bring home an offence." 47. Reliance is also placed on the judgment made by this Court in Himachal Road Transport Corporation and another versus Jarnail Singh and others,2009 LatestHLJ 174 (HP)wherein it has been held that acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whether the driver was negligent or not in causing the accident. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 15 of the judgment herein: "15. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 15 of the judgment herein: "15. In view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the judgments cites hereinabove, it is now well settled law that the acquittal of the driver in the criminal trial will have no bearing on the findings to be recorded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whether the driver was negligence or not in causing the accident........" 24. In the case of N.K.V. Bros. (P.) Ltd. vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others etc., (1980) AIR SC 1354, the Apex Court has held that the "plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under Section 304A, IPC, is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability". Further, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of G. Jayalaxmi and Ors. vs. Syed Anwar Hussain Quadri and Ors.,2014 ACJ 1176, has held that acquittal in a criminal Court is not sufficient to hold that there is no negligence in a civil case and that proof of an accident is to be established on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. Para 13 & 18 of the Judgment passed in G. Jayalaxmi and Ors. (supra) is reproduced below:- "13. In Ram Sewak & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another, (1997) ACJ 1155 : MANU/UP/0588/1997 the High Court of Allahabad, while negating the argument that acquittal in criminal court is sufficient to hold that there was no negligence, held as follows: ...... It is settled principle of law that the standard for adjudging the guilt of the accused in criminal law is beyond reasonable doubt and in civil cases, the court can take into consideration for adjudging any issue that evidence is sufficient on mere preponderance of probabilities. The legislature has provided different standards and as such the argument fails. 18. In Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCJ 368 the Supreme Court observed as follows: It was necessary to 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. 18. In Bimla Devi and others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others, (2009) 6 SCJ 368 the Supreme Court observed as follows: It was necessary to 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." As can be seen from the extracts of the various judgments quoted above, acquittal of a driver in a rash and negligent case by a criminal court cannot be a proven fact in a case before the learned Tribunal. Though the criminal court may have acquitted the accused in a criminal case, the said decision will not have any bearing on the findings to be recorded by the learned Tribunal as to whether there was rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle. This is not to say that the decision made by the criminal court cannot be followed by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal will have to make an independent finding on the basis of the facts and circumstances of a particular case, to come to a finding of occurrence of a rash and negligent act. 25. On perusing the records of Criminal Trial No. 10/2013, this Court finds that a post- mortem report had been made in respect of the deceased, wherein the description of the injury and opinion regarding the cause of death was given by a medical doctor. Though the said post-mortem report is not a part of the records of the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that, as there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the cause of death of the deceased i.e. due to his Scooty being hit from behind by the Tata Ace which resulted in his death, the requirement of a Post-mortem Report in this case is not required to prove the death of the deceased from the said accident. In view of the above reasons, this Court is of the view that there was no infirmity with the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the Tata Ace, which was insured by the appellant. 26. The appellant's counsel's submission that the payment of the compensation amount should have been equally apportioned between the appellant and the respondent No. 8 cannot be accepted, as the appellant has not been able to show that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. 27. With respect to whether the learned Tribunal has awarded a higher interest rate on the compensation amount than is permissible by law, it would be fruitful to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. S. Muana & Anr., (2018) 2 GauLT 856 , wherein the law laid down by the Apex Court has been discussed. In the above case, this Court had referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Abati Bezbaruah Vs. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India & Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 148 and Kaushnuma Begum (SMT) & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., (2001) 2 SCC 9 , wherein the Apex Court had granted interest as per the prevailing bank rate. In the present case, the judgment of the learned Tribunal was passed on 26.04.2019, when the interest prevailing as per the bank rates on fixed deposits was 6% per annum. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the interest to be awarded on the compensation amount should be @ 6% per annum. 28. With respect to whether there should be interest on future prospects, this Court finds that in the case of "The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sh. Champabati Ray & 5 Ors.", MAC Appl No. 378/2017, it was held by this Court (Principal Seat) that no interest could be given on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no interest should be given on future prospects. 29. Sh. Champabati Ray & 5 Ors.", MAC Appl No. 378/2017, it was held by this Court (Principal Seat) that no interest could be given on future prospects, as the same relates to an income to be given in the future. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that no interest should be given on future prospects. 29. With respect to whether the learned Tribunal had correctly awarded compensation for "loss of expectation of life", this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal could not have awarded compensation under the said head, as the judgment of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi & Ors. (Supra) does not provide for paying compensation for "loss of expectation of life". 30. As the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sunita Rathi & Ors., (1998) 1 SCC 365 , has held that the liability of the insurer arises when the liability of the insured has been found, this Court finds that the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the respondent No. 6/claimants. In view of the reasons stated above, the compensation payable to the claimants will be as follows:- "As such the compensation is as follows:- (1) Annual income =Rs. 37980x12 = 455760 (2) Addition of 50% of future prospect =Rs. 455760x50 = 227880 100 (3) Loss of income = 455760+227880x15x3 = 7690950 4 (4) Funeral Expense =Rs. 15,000/- (5) Loss of Estate =Rs. 15,000/- (6) Loss of Consortium =Rs. 40,000/ Total Compensation Awarded =Rs. 77,60,950/- (Rupees seventy eight lakhs sixty thousand nine hundred fifty) only." 31. The appellant is accordingly directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 77,60,950/- to the claimants. Out of the total compensation amount of Rs. 77,60,950/-, interest @ 6% per annum will be payable on the amount of Rs. 51,97,300/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e., 02.03.2017 till final payment before the learned Tribunal. No interest will be payable on the balance compensation amount of Rs. 25,63,650/-, as there can be no interest on future prospects. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted against the total amount. 32. The respondent No. 1 is also directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs each in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (children of the deceased) by way of fixed deposits in any Nationalized Bank. 25,63,650/-, as there can be no interest on future prospects. Any amount already paid shall be adjusted against the total amount. 32. The respondent No. 1 is also directed to deposit Rs. 15 lakhs each in favour of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (children of the deceased) by way of fixed deposits in any Nationalized Bank. The Original Fixed Deposit Certificates shall be produced before the Tribunal within two weeks from the date of drawal of the compensation amount by the respondent No. 1. The money kept in fixed deposits shall be released to the concerned claimants/respondents on their attaining the age of 21 years. Out of the total compensation amount awarded by this Court, Rs. 5 lakhs shall be awarded to the respondent No. 5 and the remaining amount shall be used for the maintenance of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Consequently, the impugned Judgment & Award dated 26.04.2019 passed by the MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 12/2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. 33. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.