FAO No.3343 of 2008(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... FAO No.3343 of 2008 (O&M) Decided on : August 25, 2009 Jaspal Kaur and others ... Appellants VERSUS Munshi Singh and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.P.K.Ganga, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Sunil Tandon, Advocate for the respondent – Insurance Company. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This appeal preferred by the claimants is against the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirsa, dismissing their claim petition. On scrutiny of the impugned award, it transpires that after the accident, the FIR was got lodged by Lachhman Singh (PW2), who failed to disclose the number of the offending vehicle or the name of its driver and the police also filed the case as `untraced'. No other eye-witness to the occurrence has been examined in order to establish the fault on the part of respondent No.1 (Munshi Singh). The story set up by the claimants is that after four months of the accident when the witness was going to the Police FAO No.3343 of 2008(O&M) [ 2 ] Station, he came across respondent No.1, who under the influence of liquor confessed his guilt regarding the accident caused by him. The story appears to be not believable. The other contention raised is that the criminal case is pending against the respondent driver before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, it may be taken as relevant piece of evidence against the respondents. In this regard, it may be observed that the pendency of the criminal case does not add to the merits of claim petition and is not a good evidence to hold the respondent No.1 as responsible for the accident. So long as no conviction is recorded, the accused be treated as innocent. No judgment of conviction has been brought on record to establish that respondent No.1 was at fault. In any way, the judgment of the Criminal Court shall not have any bearing on the findings of the Tribunal, which has to reach on its own conclusion on the evidence led before it. Thus, it cannot be held that the accident took place with the offending vehicle and as a result of the negligence on the part of respondent No.1. No grounds to interfere. Appeal dismissed. August 25, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE