In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh F.A.O. No. 1915 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: August 19, 2009 Umar Mohd. and another .. Appellants Vs. Sahun .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Raj Pal Singh, Advocate for Mr. H.S. Baath, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Satish Chaudhary, Advocate for the respondent. A.N. Jindal, J The appellants-claimants have preferred this appeal against the award dated 4.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, whereby their claim petition was dismissed. In this case, the accident took place on 5.9.2005. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that Umar Mohd while appearing before the criminal court as PW-1 did not support the prosecution case stating that the respondent-Sahun had not committed any accident and he was not driving the offending vehicle. The judgment (Ex.R-1) of the criminal court further reveals that Umar Mohd. was declared as hostile and he denied having made statement Ex.PW1/A before the police which was made the basis of the FIR Ex.P1. Arguments heard. Notwithstanding the fact that the judgment passed by the criminal court is not binding upon the Tribunal and the tribunal was to decide the claim petition independently on the basis of the evidence led before it. However, it is also well settled by now that the judgment of the criminal court is binding upon the civil court. The judgment (Ex.R-1) passed by the criminal court reveals that the witness who had appeared before the Tribunal stated while appearing before the criminal court that respondent No.1 did not commit the accident, thus, the court could draw at least one inference that the FIR (Ex.P1) which was recorded on the basis of F.A.O. No. 1915 of 2008 -2- *** the statement of Umar Mohd. was not correct qua the liability of the respondent Sahun and he is not truthful witness. It was only Umar Mohd. on whose statement FIR was recorded. If Umar Mohd. is not truthful witness then how could it be believed that the FIR contains true facts of the occurrence. Now the question arises, whether Umar Mohd. could now be believed to say that Sahun was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. This statement made by Umar Mohd. in the court before the Tribunal could not be believed in the light of the fact that he had disowned the recording of the FIR (Ex.P1) by him. As such, the net result would be that the appellants have failed to prove the accident or the responsibility of the respondent Sahun for the accident. Resultantly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. August 19, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge