1 D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.22/2007 Gurjeetsingh Vs. Sukhpalsingh & Ors. Date : 26.02.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHATRA RAM JAT Mr. B.N. Kalla for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Sandhu for the respondents. ----- Having heard learned counsel for the parties on merit of the appeal we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appellant is the driver of the vehicle which was involved in the accident resulting in death of Tejvendrasingh, who was employed in the Gram Panchayat and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,992/-. At the time of death, he was of 45 years of age. Taking into consideration, the length of service left with the deceased, his annual salary, the expenses liable to be incurred for his own maintenance and by applying the multiplier of 16 as per the Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act as a guideline, the Tribunal awarded 2 a compensation in a sum of Rs.9,47,136/-. The appeal against the same was rejected by the learned Single Judge vide judgment under appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant having been acquitted under Section 304 A I.P.C. and there being no other evidence of the mechanical defect in the car he was not liable for compensation. The finding in the criminal trial does not act as resjudicata or binding in the civil proceedings and whether accident was caused due to the mechanical failure of the vehicle or on account of negligence of the driver continues to be there. Moreover, the award has been made jointly and severally against Driver as well as owner of the vehicle. Award against the owner has become final as no appeal has been preferred by him. 3 Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. [CHATRA RAM JAT], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/ 4 D.B. SPECIAL APPEAL (CIVIL) NO.DR(J)102/2006 Date : 26.02.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHATRA RAM JAT Mr. B.N. Kalla for the appellant. Mr. H.S. Sandhu for the respondents. ________ Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The appeal may now be registered. [CHATRA RAM JAT], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/