Bidyadhar Pegu vs Meena Saikia & Ors.

Heard Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.1.

The present Appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.07.2013 passed in MAC Case No.2634/2007 whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati had awarded an amount of Rs.8,12,000/- as the compensation payable by the owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AS-25B-1848 along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 04.12.2007 till payment.

The sole ground on which the Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in law in deciding the Issue No.1 in as much as there was no proof that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant further submitted that in the case which falls within the ambit of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act of 1988’), it is the burden upon the Claimant to prove that there was rash and negligent driving.

Taking into account the said ground, let this Court now analyze the impugned judgment and award along with the records of the learned Tribunal.

A claim application was filed by the Claimant, i.e. the Respondent No.1 herein alleging that her Late husband namely, Kalia Saikia (since deceased) while moving towards Pathar Kuwari Tiniali on 18.10.2007 was hit from the backside by a vehicle bearing registration No.AS-25B-1848 which was owned by the Appellant. Late Kalia Saikia on account of the grievous injuries suffered was taken to the GMC Hospital and thereupon transferred to GNRC Hospital Late Kalia Saikia succumbed to the injuries and expired on 22.10.2007 at GNRC Hospital.

The Claimant, initiated a claim proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup at Guwahati which was registered and numbered as MAC Case No.2634/2007 under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation.

The Appellant who was the Opposite Party No.1 submitted a written statement wherein he stated at Paragraph No.6 of the said written statement that while he was driving his vehicle bearing registration No.As-25B-1848 on 18.10.2007 at around 11:00 AM along the express highway accompanied by two of his companions, he saw a motorcycle entering from the left side of the PWD road and the Claimant’s husband was riding a bicycle on the wrong lane and got puzzled with the motorcycle, and as a result, Late Kalia Saikia lost his balance and fell down on the road. He further stated in his written statement that at the request of some persons from the gathering on humanitarian grounds, the Appellant took the injured person in his car with the help of a few persons from the gathering and was shifted to the GMC Hospital, Guwahati wherein he was admitted in the hospital. After sometime, the son of Late Kalia Saikia, Sri Dipak Saikia reached the hospital along with Sri Mohan Mahanta and after briefing the condition of the Late Kalia Saikia, the Appellant and his companions left the hospital. He further stated in his written statement that he possessed a valid driving licence bearing DL No.3452/NB/2002/Pvt which was valid up to 25.08.2012. A further perusal of the written statement would show that the Appellant denied any involvement in the accident.

On the basis of the pleadings, two Issues were formulated which were:-

Whether the victim, Late Kalia Saikia died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 18.10.2007 involving the vehicle No.AS-25/B-1848 (Maruti car) and whether the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?

On behalf of the Claimant, two witnesses adduced evidence. PW1 was the Claimant herself. While adducing her evidence she had exhibited the Accident Information Report, certified copy of the Postmortem Report, Salary Certificate, medical expenditure of the GNRC Hospital and the Death Certificate. This Court finds it relevant to peruse the consents of Postmortem Report which was exhibited as Exhibit 2. The cause of death mentioned in the Postmortem Report was as herein under:-

This Court finds it relevant to take note of that while cross-examining the PW-1, no question was put on the aspect pertaining to the cause of death as recorded in the Postmortem Report. This aspect is relevant taking into account the stand which was taken by the Appellant in the written statement. Further to that, Exhibit 1 is the Accident Information Report prepared on 18.11.2007 wherein it was mentioned that the driving license of the Appellant expired on 31.01.2005 and the insurance to the said vehicle also expired on 10.01.2001. The offending vehicle and the registration number was mentioned to be the Maruti Vehicle bearing registration No.As-25B-1848, belonging to the Appellant.

This Court also finds it relevant to observe that upon the FIR being filed, a case was registered as Noonmati P.S. Case No.236/07 under Section 279/388 of the IPC. A charge sheet was submitted in respect to the Noonmati P.S. Case No.236/07 and it was converted into GR Case No.5670/07. The evidence which was adduced in those criminal proceedings were also exhibited before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal wherein one Sri Bikash Khakhlary who was the PW2 in the said criminal proceedings had adduced evidence to the effect that he saw the vehicle of the Appellant hitting Late Kalia Saikia from behind. On the basis of the evidence above discussed along with the other evidence so exhibited, the learned Tribunal decided the Issue No.1 with the categorical finding that the vehicle bearing registered No.AS-25B-1848 was involved in the road accident dated 18.10.2007 and was driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting into the accident which led to the death of Late Kalia Saikia.

This Court having perused the materials on record as well as the opinion rendered by the learned Tribunal as regards the Issue No.1 does not find any perversity or any error calling for interference by this Court in exercise of the Appellate Jurisdiction.

This Court further takes note that the learned Tribunal while deciding the Issue No.2 came to a finding that the Claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs.8,12,000/-. There appears to be no infirmity in the method of determination of the compensation. The interest which was awarded also appears to be reasonable.

The instant Appeal is bereft of merits. Accordingly, this Court finds no good ground calling for interference with the impugned judgment and award dated 03.07.2013 passed in MAC Case No.2634/2007.

Accordingly, the instant Appeal stands dismissed with the following observations and directions:-