ABDUL RASHID ABDUL AJIJ Vs. SHELPRABHA HARISH PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed aggrieved by the order of the First Addl. Judge to the court of District Judge, Ratlam dated 11-12-1990 whereby the prayer of the applicant made Under Section 10, Civil Procedure Code read with Section 151, Civil Procedure Code has been disallowed. The prayer of the applicant was that he was a driver of the vehicle which met with an accident and as a result of the accident a criminal case No. 2059 of 86 Under Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code is pending against him in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ratlam whereas a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of the deceased as a result of the accident has also been filed in the court of the Additional Judge to the court of the District Judge, Ratlam and, therefore, pending decision in the criminal matter the claim case should be stayed. The learned Addl. District Judge, to the court of District Judge, vide the order impugned has disallowed the prayer of the applicant. Hence this revision.

(2.) SHRI Kothari, learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1954 SC 397 in support of his argument that the criminal matter should take precedence over the civil matter and, therefore, till the criminal case is not disposed of the civil case should not proceed. In my opinion this authority does not hold the case of the applicant at all. Undisputedly the claim case is filed in the year 1986 which is unfortunately still pending. In fact no regular civil suit has been filed by the legal representatives of the deceased for compensation against the present applicant who was the driver of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle and to Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. Actually it is a claim petition before the Tribunal for getting compensation against the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company along with the driver. It cannot also be disputed that the Insurance Company indemnifies the liability of the insured in terms of the Insurance policy. It is also a clear position of law that the owner of the vehicle is vicariously liable for the tortious act of the driver. So it is the liability of not only the driver, but the owner and the Insurance Company also.

(3.) NOW the driver has come forward with a plea that a decision in civil suit shall have an adverse impact on the trial of the criminal case as far as he is concerned. I do not agree with the agreement as the position of law is very clear. A criminal court is not bound to consider the findings of a civil court while giving a decision in a criminal case. Similarly a Civil court is also not bound by any decision of the criminal court while deciding the dispute based on the pleadings in a civil suit. It is pertinent to note that civil cases are decided on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, to a prudent man. As such a finding in a civil matter can be given if the evidence before the court is such which to a reasonable man may appear to be probable, whereas in a criminal case it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the case to the hilt i. e. eliminating all the possibility of any doubt which may arise in favour of the accused person. The degrees of proof in the civil and criminal cases are, therefore, different and not the same. So as stated above the finding in one matter is not binding in the other. It has also to be seen that a claim case is not a regular suit and the Rules of procedure have also been framed for deciding the claim cases. The Legislature in its wisdom has also constituted a Tribunal for deciding the claims with the clear intention that these claim cases should not be tried as a regular civil suit. The Rules of the Tribunal have also been framed separately and only where there is no specific provision in the Rules in respect of certain procedure to be followed then some provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable by the provisions clearly Made in the Rules themselves. As such for this reason also the claim petition cannot be treated as a regular civil suit for attracting Section 10, Civil Procedure Code.