In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CM No. 25087-CII of 2008 and F.A.O. No. 4968 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: December 01, 2009 Joginder .. Appellant Vs. Jahida and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Poonam Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondents. A.N. Jindal, J Challenge in the appeal is to the order dated 13.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad, (herein referred as 'the Tribunal'), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.2,40,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants-respondents (herein referred as 'the claimants') on account of the death of Jaffruddin in a motor vehicular accident. Now this appeal has been preferred by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. The version of the claimants as set out in the claim petition is that on 5.7.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. Jaffruddin (since deceased) was coming on motor cycle No.HR26P-5330 from Kurali to village Nakhrola. In the meantime, the respondent No.1 while driving the tractor bearing registration No.UP-81-J-8766 rashly and negligently came from the opposite side and struck against the motor cycle. Resultantly, Jaffruddin suffered injuries and died. FIR No.212 dated 6.7.2004 under Sections 279/304-A IPC was registered. Consequently, the present claim petition was also filed with further averments that the deceased was 24 years old and was earning Rs.6000/- per month being mason and was supporting the family. Since the tractor was not insured, therefore, the respondent contested the case by filing written statement wherein he denied all the F.A.O. No. 4968 of 2008 -2- *** allegations and stated that he was falsely involved in the criminal case and also in this application for compensation. Eventually he prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the accident dated 6.7.2004 had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of truck No.UP-81-J-8766 by respondent No.1 thereby causing the death of Jaffruddin?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to any amount of compensation, if so, how much and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable?OPR 4. Relief. In order to prove the issues, the claimants have examined ASI Pal Singh (PW2) who proved certified copy of the FIR Ex.P1, certified copy of the driving licence Ex.P2, certified copy of the postmortem examination Ex.P3 and that of registration certificate Ex.P4. Prem Chand Verma (PW3) had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PW3/A and the claimant Jahida herself stepped into the witness box as PW-1. Thereafter, the claimants closed their evidence after tendering into evidence copy of the superdginama Ex.P5 and copy of the order dated 22.8.2004 Ex.P6. To the contrary, the respondents tendered into evidence certified copy of judgment dated 5.12.2005 Ex.R1, statement of Raju mark A and of Prem Verma mark B. Arguments heard. Perusal of the record shows that rash and negligent driving by the respondent stands duly established on the record. No doubt, name of the driver and registration number of the tractor has not been mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P1), but ASI Pal Singh (PW2) has categorically testified that during investigation, number of the tractor and the driver were disclosed by Prem Chand Verma who is the author of the FIR. As regards the contention of F.A.O. No. 4968 of 2008 -3- *** the learned counsel for the appellant that testimony of Prem Chand Verma could not be relied upon as, in the criminal case, he has deposed that he did not know the name of the driver as well as the registration number of the tractor, it may be observed that the same is not tenable because the said statement was not put to the witness when he was examined in this case. It is well settled law that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not come forward to deny his negligence, then adverse inference is to be drawn against him. In this regard, reliance could be placed on the judgment delivered by this Court in case Raju and others vs. Sukhwinder Singh and others, 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 82 (P&H). Moreso, if at all, the appellant- respondent has been acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment Ex.R1, then it has got no effect on the merits of the claim petition, as Prem Chand Verma (PW3) has stated against the appellant-respondent regarding driving of the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. Moreover, yardstick in the appreciation of the evidence in the criminal case and civil case are entirely different. In the criminal case, the prosecution is required to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, whereas, in civil case, much less in the claim petition, where summary proceedings are carried out, the case is to be established on preponderance of the probabilities. In the instant case, from the evidence on file, it is proved that in all probabilities, it was the appellant-respondent who was at fault for the accident. Findings of the criminal court are not binding on the Tribunal and the Tribunal has to come to its independent findings and conclusions on the basis of the evidence before it. Reliance could be placed on the judgment delivered in case Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Patiala vs. Joginder Kaur 2001 (3) RCR (Civil) 166 (P&H). As regards the argument qua compensation, the deceased being mason was a skilled labourer, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed his income @ Rs.2400/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd which he must have been contributing towards himself, the annual dependency of the claimants was determined at Rs.1600/- per month and Rs.19,200/- per annum. He was aged about 24 years at the time of his death, therefore, keeping in view the age of the parents, who were between 50 to 60 years at the time of accident, the suitable multiplier of 12 was applied in this case. It F.A.O. No. 4968 of 2008 -4- *** may further be observed that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.9500/- on the other heads. The claimants have failed to support his argument that the compensation was inadequate. Even otherwise, this appeal is barred by 558 days' delay which stands not explained. As such there are no grounds to condone the delay. Resultantly, finding no merit, the application is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal also fails. December 01, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge