DESH RAJ Vs. JAY PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellants impugns the award dated 04.04.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Tribunal) whereby the Claim Petition number 226/1995 preferred by the Appellants for claim of compensation in respect of death of Smt. Mahadevi who was aged about 45 years was dismissed on the ground that involvement of bus No.DEP 9759 in the accident was not established.

(2.) IN the course of inquiry before the Tribunal, the Appellants not only produced all the documents relating to the criminal case registered against Jaipal Singh Respondent No.1 but also the certified copy of the Judgment Ex.PW-1/9 whereby Respondent No.1 was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 279/304-A IPC and was released on probation of good conduct on furnishing a bond for a period of two years.

(3.) OF course, the driver and conductor entered the witness box as RW-1 and RW-2 to deny the accident yet, it cannot be lost sight that the site plan of the place of occurrence depicting the manner of accident was prepared by the IO on 15.03.1995 wherein the number of the bus as 9759 and the bus belonging to the DTC was mentioned. It is not Respondent No.1ï¿ 1/2s case that there was any other bus bearing some other initials but with the same number 9759 being plied on that very route. Thus, PW-1ï¿ 1/2s testimony was sufficient to establish the negligence. Moreover, the Respondent No.1ï¿ 1/2s conviction for the offence under Section 279/304-A IPC by Judgment Ex.PW-1/9 clinched the issue. The standard of proof required in a criminal case is much higher than in an inquiry in a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In my view, the Respondent No.1ï¿ 1/2s negligence was clearly established. The Tribunal committed a serious illegality in not taking into consideration the Judgment Ex.PW-1/9 and disbelieving PW-1 on his mere admission that he did not see bus before the accident. The finding on the issue of negligence is therefore, reversed.