National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Baljit Kaur and Others

Nawab Singh, J.—This judgment shall dispose of afore-mentioned four appeals, filed by National Insurance Company Limited - insurer of Mahindra Bolero Maxi Truck No. PB-11-L(T)-1894 (for short `the Bolero'') against the separate Awards dated June 01, 2012 passed in MACT Case Nos. 174, 175, 176 and 177 dated July 29, 2010 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short ''the Tribunal''). Firstly the facts: On June 30, 2010, Jaswant Singh (deceased) was grazing his goats and buffaloes in the field. Sukhchain Singh alias Sunny, Kirpal Singh alias Bittu and Tej Pal Singh (all three deceased) along with Kura Singh alias Jaggi and Som Nath came to meet him. They were taking tea sitting on the berm of the road, at a distance of 8-10 feet from metaled road leading from Nabha to Village Alhorran Khurd, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala. In the meanwhile, the Bolero came from Patiala bye-pass side at a fast speed, being driven rashly and negligently by Sikander Singh - respondent No. 1. He steered the Bolero towards his wrong side and ran over the aforesaid four persons, while, the remaining two also suffered injuries. The driver of the Bolero left the vehicle at a distance of about 25 yards and managed his escape. The accident was witnessed by Kashmir Singh. The injured were immediately brought to Civil Hospital, Nabha. Jawant Singh and Tej Pal Singh succumbed to their injuries on the way to Civil Hospital. Kirpal Singh and Sukhchain Singh were referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, but they also succumbed to their injuries on the way to Patiala. Kura Singh and Som Nath were admitted in Civil Hospital, Nabha.

FIR No. 110 dated June 30, 2010 (Exhibit P-3) was registered under Sections 304-A, etc. IPC in Police Station Sadar Nabha against the driver of the Bolero.

Legal representatives of the four deceased filed separate claim applications before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide Award dated June 01, 2012 awarded compensation as under:--

The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company in all the appeals is that the driver of the Bolero was acquitted in the Criminal Case vide judgment dated November 10, 2010 (Exhibit R-2), so, the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Sikander Singh, driver of the Bolero. Reliance has been placed upon United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla Devi and Others,

Kashmir Singh (PW2), an eye-witness of the accident deposed before the Tribunal that he was present on the spot and he took the deceased/injured to the Hospital. He also stated that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bolero. His statement before the Tribunal was challenged by the Insurance company on the basis of his statement (Exhibit R-1) made before the Criminal Court. Therein, he stated about the occurrence in the manner, it took place, but deposed that he could not identify the driver of the Bolero. Learned counsel for the Insurance company on the basis of the statement (Exhibit R-1) argued that claimants failed to prove the accident occurring on account of negligent driving of the Bolero.

Admittedly, the driver of the Bolero was challaned for causing the accident. It was the case wherein, the driver of the Bolero stopped the vehicle at a distance of about 25 yards from the scene of occurrence and thereafter, managed his escape. So, under these circumstances, question of identifying the driver by the eye-witness could not be there. The Bolero was taken into possession by the Police from the spot. There is no evidence on behalf of the owner or the driver that at the time of accident, the Bolero was not being driven by Sikander Singh. The driver did not appear in the witness box to rebut the evidence of the claimants, which again proves that he was driving the Bolero at the time of accident.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and Others, , has held that in a road accident claim, the strict principles of proof in a criminal case are not attracted. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In this Authority, Hon''ble Supreme Court also referred to its another judgment rendered in Bimla Devi and Others Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, wherein, it was held as under:--

In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be 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.

The sum and substance of the authorities, referred to above, is that the standard of proof in a criminal case is different from tortuous claims for accident victims that are required to be established before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider the issue of negligence by the evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by the fact of pendency of the criminal case or acquittal given by the criminal court.

The view taken by the Single Bench of this Court (K. Kannan, J.) in Kamla Devi''s case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, was in consonance with the law on the point summed hereinbefore. It was so held in paragraph No. 5 of the judgment, which reads as under:--

It should still have been possible for the Tribunal to take a decision uninfluenced by any decision that may have come before the criminal court. The several decisions which have come about on this issue are to the effect that a judgment in a criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal; the non-filing of a FIR is not material; even the fact of involvement of the vehicle as found by the criminal court is not binding. While the Tribunal is competent to assess the evidence which is brought before it and take an independent decision, then the point that has to be seen is whether there was any evidence worth its name before the Tribunal to come to a finding that the particular vehicle was involved in the accident.

In this Authority reference was also made to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Amar Singh and others, 2010 (1) AICJ 415, rendered by this Court that the Tribunal shall not be bound by the judgment of Criminal Court and it was observed, "I have not referred to any criminal court judgment to rest my findings."

The same view was taken by K. Kannan, J. in Krishan Vs. Smt. Tarawati Widow and others, observing that a criminal Court''s judgment acquitting a driver would have no relevance in a case before the Tribunal. The standard of proof in a criminal case is different from tortuous claims for accident victims that are required to be established before the Tribunal and the Tribunal will consider the issue of negligence by the evidence adduced before it, uninfluenced by the fact of pendency of the criminal case or acquittal given by the criminal court.

In upshot for the reasons recorded supra, it is established that claimants have duly discharged the onus to prove the rashness and negligence of the driver of the Bolero by leading cogent evidence, discussed above, before the Tribunal. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is repelled. The findings of the Tribunal on the issue of negligence are affirmed.

In Appeals (FAO Nos. 4951 and 4953 of 2012), the Insurance Company has also challenged the amount of compensation to the extent that Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/5th of the income towards personal and living expenses of two deceased, viz. Jaswant Singh and Kirpal Singh. The families of Jaswant Singh and Kirpal Singh consisted of five and six members respectively, including the deceased, so, in opinion of this Court, deduction towards personal and living expenses was correctly made by the Tribunal.

No other point was raised. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.