Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

“10. .. .. From Ex.A.4, it is quite clear that there was no mechanical defect in either of the vehicles involved in the accident and that the accident was purely due to the human error. Ex.A-5, the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil in S.T.C.No.3554 of 2001 evidences that the fifth respondent herein/first respondent in M.C.O.P. admitted the offence and pleaded guilty and based on his admission he was convicted for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and http://www.judis.nic.in 338 IPC. It is a well settled proposition of law that the judgments of the criminal Courts are neither binding on the civil Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal nor relevant in a civil case or a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, except for the limited purpose of showing that there was a criminal prosecution which ended in conviction or acquittal. But there is an exception to the general rule. When an accused pleads guilty and is convicted based on his admission, the judgment of the criminal Court becomes admissible and relevant in civil proceedings and proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, not because it is a judgment of the Criminal Court, but as a document containing an admission. Of course, admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted therein. But unless and until they are proved to be incorrect or false by the person against whom the admissions are sought to be used as evidence, the same shall be the best piece of evidence. In this case, though the appellant did have the right to lead evidence to disprove the facts admitted in the criminal case, no evidence has been adduced on the side of the appellant in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In addition to the above said admissions, there are other reliable evidence both oral and documentary adduced on the side of the claimants to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. In view of the overwhelming evidence adduced on the side of the claimants, apart from the unrebutted admission made by the driver of the offending vehicle http://www.judis.nic.in in the criminal case, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the above said lorry bearing registration No.TN-32-Y-2669 belonging to the sixth respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein does not suffer from any infirmity or discrepancy. Hence, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the above said finding of the Tribunal regarding the negligence aspect and the same deserves to be confirmed.”