JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short the MACT) by an order dated 23rd March, 1987 in Suit No.696/1979 awarded compensation to the Appellant of Rs.87,000/- with simple interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition for injuries suffered by him in an accident. The Appellant seeks enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,00,000/-, as claimed by him.
2. The Appellant, a Constable with the Delhi Police, was riding a motorcycle on 20th March, 1979. At about 11.00 pm, he approached a crossing near Ganga Ram Hospital when he gave a signal with his hand indicating his intention to take a right turn. He had not even taken the right turn and he was hit by a truck driven rashly and negligently. The Appellant was dragged along with his motorcycle and suffered serious injuries, including amputation of his left leg from the middle of his thigh. According to the claim petition, the driver of the truck (Respondent No.1) ran away from the spot leaving the truck behind.
3. The Respondents objected to the claim petition and stated that it was not Respondent No.1 but one Jasvinder Singh who was driving the truck at the relevant time without the consent and permission of the owner of the truck, that is, Respondent No.1. Jasvinder Singh was, however, not made a party to the proceedings.
4. On these broad facts, the learned MACT framed the following issues:
“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries as stated in the petition due to rash and negligent driving of Truck No. DHL-6406, on the part of Respondent No.1?
2. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
3. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation for the reasons mentioned in the preliminary objections/ additional plea made in the written statement?
4. To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from whom?
5. Relief.”
5. Apart from the quantum of compensation, the crux of the matter lies in the answer to the question as to who was driving the truck. The learned MACT found that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently and this finding has not been disputed. However, the learned MACT also found that Jasvinder Singh was driving the truck and not Respondent No.1. It was also found that Jasvinder Singh was not holding a valid driving license at the relevant time and, therefore, the insurance company (Respondent No.2) was not liable to pay compensation to the Appellant.
6. To determine who was driving the truck, the Appellant relied upon the testimony of PW-13 and PW-14.
7. PW-13 B.S. Pannu stated that the Appellant was on a motorcycle ahead of him and had given a signal indicating his intention to take a right turn when he was dashed by a mini truck coming at a very fast speed from behind. The truck driver tried to run away from the spot but was apprehended by the crowd. The driver then told the crowd that he was the owner of the truck and was going to report the matter to the police station, and he was allowed to do so. The statement of PW-13 B.S. Pannu was corroborated by PW-14 Dharam Pal.
8. During the course of investigation, the police challaned Jasvinder Singh for causing injuries to the Appellant. In his prosecution, Jasvinder Singh admitted his guilt to the charges framed against him under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and by an order dated 7th February, 1980, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi convicted him. A certified copy of the judgment passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was brought on record as Exh.RW-1/1. Jasvinder Singh had already spent ten months in jail, a fact mentioned in the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate entered the witness box and stated that Jasvinder Singh had made an application on 5th February, 1980 to plead guilty and on 6th February, 1980 his plea of guilty was recorded as also his admission that he did not have a driving license.
9. The judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate also notes that Jasvinder Singh confessed his guilt and admitted that he was not holding any valid driving license at that time.
10. On this basis, the learned MACT concluded that the insurance company (Respondent No.2) was not liable to pay the compensation to the Appellant.
11. In this regard, learned counsel for the Appellant contended, as was contended before the learned MACT, that Respondent No.1 had colluded with the police and had set up Jasvinder Singh as the driver of the vehicle so that no liability could be fastened upon him. I do not find it possible to accept this contention. It is extremely unlikely that anybody would like to spend ten months in jail for an offence not committed by him. It is also very unlikely that Respondent No.1 could have colluded with the police, particularly since the Appellant himself was a Constable in the Delhi Police. The contention of learned counsel for the Appellant is highly improbable and must be rejected straightway. In any event, no worthwhile evidence has been pointed out by learned counsel in support of the allegation of collusion.
12. The learned MACT has noted that in the claim petition it was mentioned by the Appellant that the driver of the vehicle had run away immediately after the accident. On the other hand, PW-13 and PW-14 stated that the driver of the truck was apprehended at the spot by the crowd. There is, therefore, an inherent contradiction as noted by the learned MACT. It is then stated by PW-13 and PW-14 that the driver of the truck said that he was the owner of the truck and was going to the police station to make a complaint. It is a matter of common knowledge that in an accident situation such as this, the crowd (particularly in Delhi) would not permit the driver of the vehicle to just walk off all alone to make a complaint to the police station.
13. I am of the view that the learned MACT rightly concluded on the basis of the evidence on record, including the testimony and the judgment of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate that Jasvinder Singh was the driver of the truck and not Respondent No.1.
14. Since admittedly Jasvinder Singh did not hold a valid driving license as confessed by him, the liability for payment of compensation cannot be fastened upon the insurance company (Respondent No.2).
15. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it has been stated in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vijay Kapur & Ors., 2003 ACT 1730 (P&H) that “It is well settled that evidence recorded in a criminal case and forming part of another file cannot be looked into.” The context in which this observation was made by the High Court is not very clear but it apparently has reference to the proceedings that took place in that case before the Lok Adalat and the observations made therein by the President and the Members of the Lok Adalat which have been referred to in paragraph 6 of the Report.
16. There is no doubt that proceedings before a criminal court and before the learned MACT are independent proceedings and the evidence that has been recorded in the criminal case cannot be read in evidence before the learned MACT. But that is not the situation in the present case.
17. In Municipal Committee vs. Romesh Saggi & Ors., , the question referred for the consideration of the Division Bench was as follows:-
“Whether the judgment of a criminal Court in a prosecution arising out of a motor accident, determining the guilt or innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned, is conclusive and binding upon the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dealing with a claim petition under Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, and if not, for what purposes and to what extent can such a judgment be availed of by the parties concerned.”
18. In paragraph 35 of the Report, the aforesaid question was answered by the Division Bench in the following terms:-
“The judgment of a Criminal Court in a prosecution arising out of a motor accident, determining the guilt or innocence of the driver of the motor vehicle concerned, is neither conclusive or binding on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, dealing with a claim petition under Section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, and its findings as to the guilt or otherwise of the driver are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of the trial on merits of the claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Such judgment can, however, be relevant only for the purpose and to the extent specified in Section 43 of the Evidence Act.”
19. Learned counsel for the Appellant drew my attention to Raja Ram Garg vs. Chhanga Singh & Ors., where the question before the Division Bench was whether proceedings before the learned MACT are liable to be stayed during the pendency of a criminal case. This question was answered in the negative by the Allahabad High Court. While doing so, it was observed that the judgment of the criminal Court would not be relevant in a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act and certainly not for establishing the fact in issue by virtue of Sections 40 and 43 of the Evidence Act.
20. A reading of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the Appellant as well as the provisions of Section 43 of the Evidence Act clearly shows that the question whether the driver of the truck was rash or negligent may be decided in the criminal case, but that conclusion would not be relevant in so far as the claim before the learned MACT is concerned. There can be no doubt about this proposition. But, for the purposes of determining whether Jasvinder Singh was the driver of the vehicle or not, reliance could be placed upon the judgment delivered by the criminal Court. This is all the more so since Jasvinder Singh made an admission/confession that he was the driver of the truck. Consequently, while the negligence of Jasvinder Singh was required to be (and was) independently determined by the learned MACT, no error was committed by the learned MACT in relying upon the judgment Exh.RW-1/1 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for coming to the conclusion that Jasvinder Singh was the driver of the vehicle.
21. The second issue raised by learned counsel for the Appellant is with regard to the amount of compensation awarded. The learned MACT awarded a sum of Rs.87,000/-. This was quantified as follows:-
Mental pain and suffering Rs.10,000/-
Medicines and treatment charges Rs. 5,000/-
Conveyance charges Rs. 1,200/-
Special diet Rs. 5,000/-
Economic loss due to absence
from duty and future disability Rs. 3,000/-
Purchase and use of artificial limbs Rs.13,625/-
Loss due to permanent disability Rs.25,000/-
Transport charges Rs.24,000/-
--------------
Total Rs.86,825
Rounded off Rs.87,000/-
22. The criticism is with regard to the low amount given towards permanent disability suffered by the Appellant. I think the criticism is justified. There is no doubt that the Appellant was a young man of about 26 years of age. He was working with the Delhi Police and would, in the normal course, have earned some promotions. In fact, it was stated by him in his claim petition that he was likely to be promoted to the post of Head Constable quite soon and would, thereafter, have been promoted to the rank of ASI and SI. Keeping in view the real and future prospects of the Appellant, I am of the view that the amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded appears to be inadequate, in the facts of the present case. The amount is required to be enhanced by about Rs. 13,000/- so that the full claim amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is payable to the Appellant. It is ordered accordingly.
23. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The balance amount due to the Appellant as a result of this decision will be payable to him with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization.
24. There will be no order as to costs.