Future Generalli Insurance Company vs Dinesh Chandra Upadhyay

@DELETEUPPERDATA

Alok Singh, J.—Present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment/award dated 11th February, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ADJ, Almora, whereby claim petition was partly allowed for the payment of compensation of Rs. 13,78,900 with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual payment against the Insurance Company - respondent No. 3 therein/appellant herein. Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that since driver of the vehicle Jahid Hussain respondent No. 4 herein, stood acquitted in a criminal case and was not held guilty for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, therefore, it was not open to the Tribunal to award compensation to the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the sole reason, to award the compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, rash and negligent driving, on the part of driver, had to be proved. He further contends that no independent witness was produced on the witness box to say that driver of the vehicle Jahid Hussain was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Smt. Gaura Devi and Others Vs. Shahzad Khan and Others, , wherein the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that merely because driver has been charge-sheeted in criminal case pertaining to the instant accident, it cannot be held that he was responsible for the accidental death of the deceased.

Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate appearing for the appellant, except the above submissions, does not want to make any other submission either on the quantum of the compensation or on any other point.

Let me now examine the submissions raised by Mr. Agarwal, Advocate appearing for the appellant.

Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another Vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another, , while relying upon judgment in the case of M.S. Sheriff Vs. The State of Madras and Others, has held as under:

"32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the Civil and Criminal Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein."

As per dictum of Hon''ble Apex Court, the standard of proof required in the civil and criminal proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein.

Let me now examine the principle of preponderance in the present case.

Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that claim petition was filed before MACT alleging that at about 4.30 p.m. on 11th January, 2009, when Km. Meena Upadhyay, (deceased) was coming from the market to her home, vehicle No. UA 04 D 8012 hit her, which resulted into her death, vehicle No. UA 04 D 8012 was being driven by respondent No. 2 Jahid Hussain (driver of the vehicle) rashly and negligently; deceased was aged about 45 years; she was teacher in Government Primary School, Mala, Someshwar and was getting salary Rs. 19,500 per month at the time of her death. Prompt FIR was lodged and charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the vehicle Jahid Hussain for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A of IPC; however, he was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora, as in the opinion of Chief Judicial Magistrate, prosecution could not prove that he was rash and negligent while driving the vehicle, in question.

It is important to mention here that despite sufficient service on the driver of the vehicle Jahid Hussain and owner of the vehicle Satya Prakash Sharma, they did not opt to file their written statements and remained ex parte, therefore, the fact that vehicle No. UA 04 D 8012 was being driven by Jahid Hussain, rashly and negligently, at the time of accident, remained uncontroverted.

None of the officials/officers of the Insurance Company was present on the spot at the time of accident, even then, plea was taken by the Insurance Company/appellant that Jahid Hussain was not rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, at the time of accident. In my considered opinion, it was not open to the appellant to say that driver of the vehicle was not rash and negligent, while driving the vehicle for want of personal knowledge. As discussed hereinabove, case of the claimant is that driver of the vehicle namely Jahid Hussain was rash and negligent in driving the vehicle, which hit Meena Upadhyay, which resulted into her death. This fact was not denied either by the owner or driver of the vehicle by filing written statement. Although, Insurance Company attempted to deny the same. As observed hereinbefore, since none of the officials/officers of the Insurance Company was present on the spot at the time of accident, therefore, they were not in a position either to deny or to admit the manner of accident, therefore, in my considered opinion, findings recorded by the learned Tribunal need no interference. Since quantum of the compensation is not disputed by Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant and no other point is raised, therefore, I am not dealing with any other point. Consequently, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed summarily.

CLMA No. 4707 of 2014 stands disposed of.