“ The contention of counsel for respondent is that as there was intention to kill the persons which becomes culpable homicide, as such there was no rash and negligent act of driving of vehicle nor there was accident but it was intentional act. By going through findings of learned Sessions Judge, Chandigarh it is very much clear that even accused Sharma Chaudhary has been acquitted for charges punishable under Section 302 and 307 of IPC rather the findings are that it is reckless manner act of respondent No.1 presumably under the influence of intoxicants and was dangerous enough and he knew that one result would like be that persons sleeping on the parking may be run over. So, nothing has been established regarding intention of culpable homicide of many persons or attempt to murder. Otherwise also, the findings of criminal court is not binding on this Tribunal. Even evidence Act is not strictly applicable while dealing with the motor accident claim case by this Tribunal. This is a social legislation just to fulfill the requirements that dependents of victim shall be compensated in terms of money. Moreover, there was no such fault on the part of victims in sleeping in a ground. The law has been cited by learned counsel for claimants titled Pushpa Rani Vs. Rajinder Kumar and others laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in FAO No.1444 of 1995 decided on 10.03.2014 where also the allegations was there that deceased were deliberately run over by the driver of the truck with criminal intention to kill him. Although Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition but the Hon’ble High Court has reversed the findings of Tribunal and granted compensation.”
