F.A.O.No. 855 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No. 855 of 1987 Date of Decision : 12.11.2008 Bachni Devi ....Appellant Versus Raj Kumar & others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.H.P.S.Issar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Des Raj Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr.R.C.Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... MAHESH GROVER, J. This is an appeal directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 18.3.1987. The claimant/appellant is the mother of the deceased. Her claim petition was dismissed as it was held that the deceased was negligent in driving the motorcycle which collided with the car. There is a dispute regarding the identity of the driver as well and the Tribunal held that Raj Kumar was not driving the offending vehicle at the given point of time and that it was Bhagwan Singh son of Sadhu F.A.O.No. 855 of 1987 -2- Singh who was the driver. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the award is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. It was further contended that the finding regarding negligence and also regarding identity of the driver is erroneous. The respondents, on the other hand, justified the award. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the appeal. In so far as the accident is concerned, there is no dispute that the accident took place with the car. It was disputed, however, that Raj Kumar was not driving the vehicle, which fact was accepted by the Tribunal, though erroneously. The record reveals that Raj Kumar was charged under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and faced the criminal proceedings. He suffered the conviction initially but was acquitted subsequently. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, which are in the nature of inquiry, conclusive proof is not required. Prima facie, it appears that Raj Kumar was indeed driving the car as he was facing the criminal proceedings which is one of the indicators to be taken into consideration at the time of determining the issue of negligence and the factum of the vehicle being involved in the accident. Mere acquittal in the criminal case does not have any bearing on such finding to be recorded before the Tribunal as the parameters of determining culpability are entirely different. The finding of the Tribunal on this issue is set aside and F.A.O.No. 855 of 1987 -3- it is held that Raj Kumar was driving the offending vehicle. Merely because Raj Kumar had been challaned does not ipso facto establish his negligence especially in view of the fact that the photographs which are on record speak otherwise. A perusal of the photographs shows that the car was being driven on its extreme left hand side and that the motorcycle had struck against the left side of the car. The motorcycle was also said to be coming from the opposite direction. This implies that the motorcyclist was driving the motorcycle on his wrong side. The finding of the Tribunal that the deceased was negligent, therefore, is affirmed. The deceased himself being negligent is, therefore, not entitled to any compensation. However, the award is said to have come into existence in the year 1987. Some amount should have been awarded by taking into consideration the provisions of Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with a direction that the appellant shall be entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of its realisation. 12.11.2008 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss