FAO No.1323 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1323 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 16.3.2010 Simranjit Singh @ Soni ..Appellant Vs. Rajinder Kaur & Anr ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present: Mr.H.S.Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. Vinod K.Sharma, J, (Oral) This appeal by the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle is directed against the award dated 18.1.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barnala (for short the Tribunal). The claimant/respondents filed a petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) on the pleadings that on 10.1.2009 Balwinder deceased was travelling by scooter No.PB-13-D-9166, who was going to village Sahaur from Mangewal. Gobinder Singh, his brother was also following him on another scooter and his wife Rajinder Kaur was his pillion rider. At about 1.30 PM a Maruti Alto Car driven by FAO No.1323 of 2010 2 the appellant in rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and without blowing horn struck against the scooter which resulted in serious injuries on the head and body of Balwinder Singh. He was shifted to hospital,where he ultimately died. It was the case of the claimants that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Alto car. FIR No.3 dated 11.1.2009 was registered under sections 279/304-A IPC against the appellant. The deceased was said to be working as a driver with Nankana Sahib Transport Company Private Ltd. and earning an income of Rs.5200/- (Rupees five thousand and two hundred only) per month. He was said to be earning another sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) from agricultural work and Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) per month from selling of milk. Claim petition was contested, wherein locus standi of the claimants to maintain the petition was questioned. The appellant denied his liability to pay compensation by claiming that the car of the appellant had not met with any accident. Plea of total denial was taken. FIR lodged was said to be wrong. The appellant also pressed into service report of the police in FIR claiming that the injuries were suffered by the deceased due to fall and not on account of accident. From the pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1 Whether Balwinder Singh died in motor vehicular accident which took place on 10.1.2009 on account of FAO No.1323 of 2010 3 rash and negligent driving of Maruti Alto car bearing No.PB-08-AY-3027, driven by respondent No.1 Simranjit Singh? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimants are entitled to seek compensation, if so to what extent? OPP 3. Whether claimants have no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR 4. Relief. On appreciation of evidence led, learned Tribunal held that Balwinder Singh died in a motor vehicular accident on 10.1.2009 on account of rash and negligent driving of Maruti Alto car bearing No.PB-08- AY 3027 driven by the appellant. On issue No.3 claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.3,94,000/- (Rupees three lacs ninety four thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. Learned Tribunal while assessing the income had taken income of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) and dependency at Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and keeping in view the age of the deceased multiplier of 16 was applied. Claimant/respondents in support of issue No.1 had examined claimant No.1 Rajinder Kaur who was eye witness to the accident and also Gobinder Singh another eye witness to the accident. FIR was also duly exhibited. Learned Tribunal accepted the evidence led by the claimants to conclude that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of FAO No.1323 of 2010 4 car No. PB-08-AY-3027. Cancellation report of FIR and report of mechanical check up was rejected by the learned Tribunal being only a photo copy and not original. Mr.H.S.Brar, learned counsel for the appellant challenged the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 by contending that the learned Tribunal wrongly ignored the photo copies of the documents which were duly exhibited without objection from the other party and therefore, the order suffers from the patent illegality. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had led independent evidence to prove that car bearing No. PB-08-AY-3027 had not met with any accident but the learned Tribunal wrongly rejected evidence to hold against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seth Ramdayal Jat Vs. Laxmi Prasad (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 545 to contend that though civil proceedings cannot be determined on the basis of the judgment of criminal court but that would not mean that it is not admissible for any basis whatsoever. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, was that once cancellation report was duly exhibited on record it was a relevant factor to be taken into consideration to determine issue No.1. The learned Tribunal, therefore, wrongly rejected the admissible evidence to record a finding against the appellant. On consideration I find no force in this contention. Report of the criminal investigation is merely a piece of FAO No.1323 of 2010 5 evidence and not conclusive to hold that the finding on issue No1 by the learned Tribunal is wrong. It also cannot be said that mechanical report of the car obtained after few months of accident was such a evidence which could lead to only one conclusion that the car had not met with accident. Learned Tribunal had accepted the version set up by the claimants which was based on the evidence of the eye witnesses to the accident. There was no allegation that the claimants falsely implicated appellant in the accident and therefore, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or not capable of being arrived at in view of the evidence led by the claimants. It is well settled law that the appellate court cannot upset the findings of the learned trial court merely if another view is also possible. Once the view taken by the learned Tribunal is not perverse and keeping in view the fact that the provisions of section 166 of the Act are in nature of beneficial legislation, no ground is made out to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal on Issue No.1. Findings on issues No.2 and 3 were not challenged and rightly so as the compensation granted cannot be said to be excessive or on higher side. Consequently, finding no merit in this appeal it is dismissed. (Vinod K.Sharma) 16.03.2010 Judge rp