GOPAL S. KRISHNAN Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Gopal S. Krishnan impugns a judgment dated 28.08.2002 arising out of the Claim Petition No.530/2001 whereby a Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) on the ground that the Appellant had failed to establish that the accident was caused on account of rash or negligent driving on the part of the First Respondent of Maruti Van No. DL-2C-F-0883. The said vehicle was owned by the Second Respondent, financed by the Third Respondent and insured by the Fourth Respondent.

(2.) The manner of accident as stated by the Appellant and the defence of the First and the Second Respondent as stated in paras 2 and 6 of the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder:

(3.) The Claims Tribunal framed the issues by an order dated 08.05.1998. During inquiry before the Claims Tribunal, it was brought on record that an FIR bearing No.254/94 under Section 279/337 IPC was registered against the Appellant. A charge sheet was filed against him, to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 279/337 IPC. In fact, these facts were not disclosed during inquiry before the Claims Tribunal by the Appellant. It was only when an application under Order 18 Rule 17A was moved by the First and the Second Respondent i.e. the driver and the owner of Maruti Van No. DL-2C-F-0883 that it was admitted by the Appellant that the police did register an FIR against him and that he was also convicted for the offence of rash and negligent driving for the accident in question. The Appellant s plea before the Claims Tribunal was that the finding of the criminal court was not binding on the Claims Tribunal and since his evidence had not been repudiated, it will be treated as sufficient proof of negligence on the part of the First Respondent. This plea of the Appellant was rejected by the Claims Tribunal.