FAO No. 4189 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FAO No. 4189 of 2003 Date of decision February 14, 2011 Braham Dutt ....... Appellant Versus Mahinder and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Paul S Saini , Advocate for the Insurance Company-respondent No.3. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for damages caused to the truck that belonged to the appellant. It was a case of collision with the insured's truck and the claim was made on the basis of evidence adduced through the motor mechanic who had carried out repairs and spoke about the respective bills that they had raised for denting, painting and doing electrical work for making it road worthy. The case admittedly had been registered against the driver of the insured's truck for rash and negligent driving and the claimant relied on a judgment of the criminal Court that entered conviction for rash and negligent driving of the driver. The driver of the insured's truck itself was FAO No. 4189 of 2003 2 not examined. 2. The petition was dismissed on the ground that the claimant had not let in any evidence to any person who had seen the accident. According to learned counsel appearing for the insurer the judgment in Criminal Court could not have been relied on by the Tribunal and the Tribunal ought to have held that negligence had not been established. 3. The reliance on Criminal Court judgment shall always be with extraordinary circumspection for it may not at all times prove the lack of rashness and negligence, since the standard of proof before the Tribunal is different from the standard of proof in a criminal case. In the latter situation the charge must be established beyond all reasonable doubt. But for a tort action, extracting standards of criminal negligence is not necessary. However, in a case of conviction a criminal case before the Tribunal, there will be nothing wrong for a Tribunal to accept the judgment of a criminal conviction. A person can proceed to pass an award making an inference of the negligence of the driver. This is no rule of thumb but a general rule of exigency to save time of the Court. There could be instances where a driver may be compelled to make a confession before the Criminal Court to save time and he may have other compulsions for not entering a long drawn contest in a Criminal Court. If any explanation is given by the driver before the Tribunal and wants to lead evidence that there was no negligence on his part, a Tribunal would be justified in entering adjudication in spite of a Criminal Court conviction. This depends on an explanation that the driver is able to offer at trial before the Tribunal. An order of conviction before a criminal court cannot be discarded the same way as a Tribunal could discard an order of acquittal. This distinction in my view, must be borne in mind as regards the extent of reliability of a criminal Court judgment. Learned counsel refers to me a FAO No. 4189 of 2003 3 Division Bench ruling of a Gujrat High Court in Pankajbhai Chandulal Patel Vs. Bharat Transport Co. and another 1997 ACJ 993 to support his point of view. It was a case where the driver had suffered a conviction on an admission of guilt before a Criminal Court and the Division Bench said that it was not sufficient. This statement of law does not obtain the same treatment in several Courts. Several Courts in India have taken the view that a finding of guilt before a criminal court would be conclusive of proof of negligence before the Tribunal. I may outline the decisions that have held to the contrary from the view taken by the Gujrat High Court. A Division Bench of Patna High Court in Badri Narayan Parsad Vs. Anil Kumar Gupta, AIR 1979 Patna 204;. The Madhya Pardesh High Court in Virender Khamparya Vs. Yogashodra 2003 MPLJ 603; Dukha Dev Sarkar Vs.Govt. of India, Labour Welfare Department 1994 ACJ 131; Vinobha Bhai and others Vs. K. S. R.T.C. 1979 ACJ 282; Govind Singh VS. A. S. Kailasam and another AIR 1975 Madras 65; Oriental Insurance company Ltd. VS. Vijaya 2007 1 MLJ 616; Adarsh Dass VS. Didar Singh 1997 ACJ 353; Yoginder Dass Chauhan Vs. Durga Dass Punj 1972 ACJ 483. I have not been shown through any judgment of this Court that takes a contrary view to the view that I have taken. 4. On the issue of quantum, the Tribunal had reasoned that the owner had not awaited till a surveyor was called to make an assessment of damage to the vehicle. There is certain force in the contention but I will not take this to completely wipe out a claim by the claimant as fictitious. Persons who had carried out the repairs were actually examined before the Court to speak about the damage to the vehicle. The persons who had carried out repair respectively prepared bills of `4150/-, `8750/- and `48700/-totalling in all `60,600/-. I would award to the appellant the same. The amount in excess of what has been awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the FAO No. 4189 of 2003 4 date of petition till the date of payment. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 17, 2011 archana