Geeta Devi and Another vs Rajesh and Others

R.S. Chauhan, J.—Having lost her son, Satyaveer, aged about 18 years and having lost her case before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Behror, (hereinafter referred to as ''the learned Tribunal''), the Appellant has challenged the award dated 13.9.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal.

The brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2004, Satyaveer was returning on a motor cycle along with his friend, Rajesh Kumar. The motor cycle was being driven by Rajesh Kumar. When the motor cycle reached near the Nagarpalika situated at Narnol Road, due to rash and negligent driving of Rajesh Kumar, the motor cycle met with an accident. Satyaveer Singh sustained grievous injuries and was referred to the SMS Hospital at Jaipur. But unfortunately, he expired during the course of treatment. Appellant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate her case, she examined two other witnesses besides herself and submitted seventeen documents. The Respondents examined three witnesses and submitted four documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

Mr. B.C. Rawat, the learned Counsel for the Appellant, has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in ignoring the evidence which was recorded before it, and by heavily relying on the evidence which was recorded by the criminal court trying the criminal case under Sections 304-A and 279 of Indian Penal Code. According to learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal should have considered the evidence produced by the Appellant before the learned Tribunal itself.

On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Agarwal, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, has contended that the learned Tribunal is free to consider the evidence which was produced before the criminal court as the proceedings of the criminal trial have equal bearing on the finding of the learned Tribunal. After all, both the criminal case as well as the claim petition arise out of the same set of facts.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that there are two witnesses. While AW 2, Satish, has been produced as an eyewitness, NAW 2, Satish has been produced as the person who lodged the F.I.R. before the police. According to the learned Tribunal, while AW 2, Satish was produced as an eyewitness, NAW 2 Satish was not an eyewitness. However, learned Tribunal has relied more upon the testimony of NAW 2, Satish and has totally ignored the testimony of AW 2, Satish. It has done so ostensibly on the ground that in the criminal trial, AW 2 Satish was not produced as an eyewitness of the prosecution. Interestingly, NAW 2 Satish has turned hostile before the learned Tribunal, although he had supported the case of the prosecution in the criminal trial.

Surprisingly, the learned Tribunal has also overlooked the testimony of AW 3, Mahaveer. The learned Tribunal is also swayed by the fact that there was some delay in lodging of the F.I.R. before the police. But it has ignored the fact that after the death of Satyaveer, there was no one left in the family except the present Appellant, an old woman, who could not have lodged the F.I.R. To say the least, learned Tribunal has made much out of the delay in lodging of the F.I.R., meanwhile forgetting the fact that a woman who has lost her son may not be in a physical or mental position to immediately lodge the F.I.R.

A bare perusal of impugned award also reveals that the very approach of the learned Tribunal is misplaced. Instead of analysing the testimonies of AW 2, Satish and Mahaveer, the learned Tribunal is influenced by the fact that those witnesses who were produced as eyewitness have turned hostile during the course of criminal proceedings itself. It is also more influenced by the testimony of NAW 2, Satish. It is, indeed, trite to state that while the finding of a civil court is binding on the criminal court, the finding of a criminal court could not and should not influence the decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is supposed to adjudge the case on the basis of evidence produced before it and not on the basis of testimonies given before the criminal court. In this view of the matter, the award is hereby quashed and set aside and the case is remanded to the concerned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide this case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

With these observations, this appeal is, hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.