Harati Kalai VsNanda Gopal Roy

Deepak Gupta, J.—All these four appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 31-01-2003 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala whereby the learned Tribunal held the claimants entitled to compensation but also held that only the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No. TRT-229, i.e. Nanda Gopal Roy (Saha), was liable to pay the compensation.

At the outset, it may be mentioned that the claimants in these appeals had earlier filed petitions seeking transfer of these cases from my Court to any other Judge of this High Court. These petitions were rejected vide order dated 25-07-2014 which reads as follows:-

"When these matters were taken up for hearing, it was brought to my notice that the claimants have filed applications under section 24 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) praying for transfer of the aforesaid cases to any other Judge of this High Court.

At the outset, I may note that section 24 does not apply to transfer of cases from one Bench of the High Court to another and basically by means of these applications purportedly filed on behalf of the claimants, they have sought that I should recuse from hearing the matters and list them before some other Judge of this Court. These applications are not signed by counsel for the parties but have been signed by the claimants. The relevant portion of the applications read as follows:-

"1. That, the above named petitioner has learnt few days ago that Learned Counsel of the petitioner has filed a letter to the Hon''ble President of India against some assertion against your Lordship i.e. Hon''ble Mr. Chief Justice Deepak Gupta of High Court Tripura, as such the above named petitioner is afraid that she may not get proper justice from your Lordship in the above noted Memo of Appeal, as the Learned Counsel of petitioner is Mr. S.K. Datta, Advocate who is conducting the above noted case on behalf of the petitioner.

That, own choice lawyer of the petitioner is Mr. S.K. Datta and he has been conducting the case from the Learned Tribunal on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner intends that Mr. S.K. Datta Advocate will conducting the case of the petitioner before the Hon''ble High Court.

That, for the reasons and circumstances narrated herein above the petitioner thinks that if the said case may be transferred to the Bench of any other Hon''ble Judge of this High Court, the petitioner will get proper justice."

The short issue is whether I should choose the easy path of recusing from the case or should I abide by the oath which every Judge takes on assuming office whereby he swears to discharge his duties duly and faithfully, to the best of his knowledge and judgment and perform his duties of office without fear or favour, affection or ill will while upholding the Constitution and the laws.

The dilemma which a Judge faces when confronted with such a situation has been best described by Hon''ble Justice Manmohan Sarin of the Delhi High Court in the Contempt Proceedings which were initiated against Sri R.K. Anand, a then Senior Advocate of the Delhi High Court. Sri R.K. Anand had filed an application that the Senior Judge of the Bench Hon''ble Justice Manmohan Sarin, as he then was, should recuse from hearing the case on the ground that he was personally hostile to Mr. R.K. Anand. It was alleged that when both Mr. R.K. Anand and Justice Manmohan Sarin were lawyers, they had many quarrels and verbal exchange of abuses. It was also mentioned that when Justice Manmohan Sarin, prior to his elevation, was Vice-President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association, he had moved a resolution before the Executive Committee of the Association opposing any proposal for the appointment of Sri R.K. Anand as Judge of the High Court of Delhi. Other allegations were also levelled. Justice Manmohan Sarin held as follows:-

"The path of recusal is very often a convenient and a soft option. This is especially so since a Judge really has no vested interest in doing a particular matter. However, the oath of office taken under Article 219 of the Constitution of India enjoins the Judge to duly and faithfully and to the best of his knowledge and judgment, perform the duties of office without fear or favour affection or ill will while upholding the constitution and the laws. In a case, where unfounded and motivated allegations of bias are sought to be made with a view of forum hunting/Bench preference or brow-beating the Court, then, succumbing to such a pressure would tantamount to not fulfilling the oath of office."

I am in total agreement with the aforesaid observations of Hon''ble Justice Sarin. If a Judge recuses from hearing a matter only because he wants to avoid a controversy, then he is not being true and faithful to the oath which he has subscribed to.

The Apex Court approved what was said by Justice Sarin and the observations of the Apex Court in R.K. Anand Vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court, are as follows:-

" xxx xxx The above passage, in our view, correctly sums up what should be the Court''s response in the face of a request for recusal made with the intent to intimidate the court or to get better of an "inconvenient" Judge or to obfuscate the issues or to cause obstruction and delay the proceedings or in any other way frustrate or obstruct the course of justice.

We are constrained to pause here for a moment and to express grave concern over the fact that lately such tendencies and practices are on the increase. We have come across instances where one would simply throw a stone on a Judge (who is quite defenceless in such matters!) and later on cite the gratuitous attack as a ground to ask the Judge to recuse himself from hearing a case in which he would be appearing. Such conduct is bound to cause deep hurt to the Judge concerned but what is of far greater importance is that it defies the very fundamentals of administration of justice. A motivated application for recusal, therefore, needs to be dealt with sternly and should be viewed ordinarily as interference in the due course of justice leading to penal consequences."

Recently in a judgment delivered on 06-05-2014, the Apex Court dealt with a similar issue where unfortunately some Senior Counsel asked Judges of the Apex Court to recuse from hearing the matter. This judgment was delivered in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 57 of 2014 dated 06-05-2014).

Dealing with the issue as to whether they should hear the matter or not, the Apex Court held as follows:-

"In our understanding, the oath of our office, required us to go ahead with the hearing. And not to be overawed by such submissions. In our view, not hearing the matter, would constitute an act in breach of our oath of office, which mandates us to perform the duties of our office, to the best of our ability, without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

Thereafter, the Apex Court has quoted with approval the observations of Hon''ble Mr. Justice Manmohan Sarin which have been quoted above. The Apex Court further went on to hold as follows:-

"If it was learned counsel''s posturing antics, aimed at bench-hunting or bench-hopping (or should we say, bench-avoiding), we would not allow that. Affronts, jibes and carefully and consciously planned snubs could not deter us, from discharging our onerous responsibility. We could at any time, during the course of hearing, walk out and make way, for another Bench to decide the matter, if ever we felt that, that would be the righteous course to follow."

This is the law which has been laid down by the Apex Court and no Judge of the High Court should recuse from hearing a matter unless he in his heart feels that he will be unable to deliver justice to the parties.

A Judge has no personal or vested interest in any matter brought before him. A Judge has no connection with the parties to the proceedings. The grievance of the claimants is that since their counsel has leveled certain allegations against me, therefore they may not get justice from this Court. To say the least, this is an affront to the High Office of Chief Justice.

What has been said by the Apex Court in the context of the Supreme Court of India and the Delhi High Court will apply with even greater force to a smaller Court like the High Court of Tripura. This Court consists of only four Judges including the Chief Justice. Unfortunately, Mr. S.K. Datta had leveled allegations against an Hon''ble Judge of the Gauhati High Court who now happens to be the senior most Puisne Judge of this Court. He does not hear the matters of Mr. Datta. If I accept this request of the claimants that I should recuse from the case because their counsel Mr. S.K. Datta has leveled certain allegations against me, that will mean that the Chief Justice and the senior most Judge of this Court will not hear any matters in which Mr. Datta is counsel. This would mean that half the Court would be unable to hear his matters.

No counsel or party can be permitted to choose a Bench of its choice. Forum-hunting or Bench-hunting or Judge-hunting cannot be permitted. If these applications are allowed, then any unscrupulous litigant who does not want his matter to be heard by the Chief Justice and the senior most puisne Judge of this Court would only have to get a Vakalatnama filed by Sri S.K. Datta and the case will have to be listed before some other Bench. In my view, that would spell the death knell to the cause of justice and the independence of the judiciary. It will also cause grave embarrassment to the two other Hon''ble Judges of this Court because a perception may arise that Mr. Datta wants his matters to be heard only by those two Hon''ble Judges.

Coming to the facts of this case. The claimants want that I should not hear the matters. The first puisne Judge of this Court does not hear the matters of Mr. S.K. Datta. The second puisne Judge cannot hear the matters because the impugned judgment is passed by him. Therefore, effectively allowing this prayer means that the only remaining Judge, i.e. the third puisne Judge will hear the matters and the claimant(s) will virtually decide as to which Judge is to hear his/her matter. This is bound to cause embarrassment to that Hon''ble Judge also.

Another important aspect is that one of the allegations levelled by Mr. Datta in his complaint against me is with regard to the purchase of computers. That purchase was done by a committee consisting of myself, the third puisne Judge, the Registrar General, the Joint Registrar and the Deputy Registrar (Judicial)-cum-Central Project Coordinator of this Court. Therefore, if according to Mr. Datta, the purchase is improper, then the third puisne Judge is also placed in the same situation and he also would be unable to hear the matter. The end result would be that as far as these cases are concerned, if I do not hear the matters, none of the other Judges can also hear the matters.

There is an increasing tendency, as noted by the Apex Court, of counsel levelling allegations against Judges who cannot defend themselves. Be that as it may, if a counsel feels that he may not get justice from a particular Judge, then the counsel should not appear before the Judge and he should withdraw from the matters and should not ask the Judge to recuse. Let the counsel decide whether he wants to appear before any Judge or not. As far as this Court is concerned, it will discharge its duty in accordance with the oath of office without fear or favour, affection or ill will.

It would also be pertinent to mention that these four appeals arise out motor accident cases and the roster to hear these matters is only with the Chief Justice. These matters were first listed before this Court on 30-04-2013 when Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the appellants, pointed out that all connected matters may be listed together. Thereafter, the matters were listed on 28-06-2013 when a request for adjournment was made on behalf of Mr. Datta on the ground that he was out of station. The matters were adjourned to 07-08-2013. Thereafter, again Mr. Datta requested for an adjournment and the matters were adjourned to 14-08-2013. The matters were then taken up on 16-08-2013 when again Mr. Datta prayed for time to lead additional evidence and the cases were adjourned to 30-08-2013. On that date, counsel for the respondent sought an adjournment and the matters were adjourned. On 15-11-2013 when the matters were again taken up, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Despite that, the cases were adjourned. Thereafter, the matters were taken up on 09-12-2013 when they were again adjourned to 17-12-2013 on which date Mr. Datta again prayed for time to file an application and the cases were adjourned to 29-01-2014. On that date, Mr. Datta stated that he had filed some applications for impleadment of a party but they were not on record and, therefore, the matters were adjourned to 18-02-2014. These applications were allowed and the National Insurance Company was impleaded as a party and the matters were adjourned to 29-05-2014 for service of the newly added respondents. Thereafter, learned counsel for the National Insurance Company had requested for an adjournment and the matters have come up today. Today, none is present for the appellants. I am not disposing of the appeals but since the so called applications for transfer which basically are for my recusal from the cases have not been signed by Mr. Datta or filed by him but directly by the claimants, they are disposed of by the aforesaid order.

This Court has no personal interest in the matters and, therefore, the applications for recusal are rejected. However, the matters are adjourned to 25-08-2014 by which date the claimants, if they so desire, may approach the Apex Court and obtain appropriate order(s), if any. Since the applications have been filed by the claimants in person and they are not represented today, the Registrar General of this Court is directed to depute an Officer, not below the rank of Deputy Registrar, of this Court who shall personally handover the orders to the claimants who appear to be illiterate tribal persons and shall explain to them what is the import of the order. If those claimants desire to approach the Supreme Court, then the Officer concerned shall advise them how to approach the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and shall give them proper assistance to ensure that if they want to go to the Supreme Court, they may do so.

List all the appeals for hearing on 25-08-2014."

In compliance to the orders of this Court, the Deputy Registrar of this Court served and explained the order to the appellants and his report reads as follows:-

"To The Registrar General, High Court of Tripura, Agartala.

Sub:- Report regarding handing over copy of the common Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 25.7.2014 passed by the Hon''ble High Court in Case No. MAC APP. 01 of 2004, MAC APP. 02 of 2004, MAC APP. 03 of 2004 and MAC APP. 06 of 2014 to the Claimants of those cases in compliance with the said order dated 25.07.14 of the Hon''ble High Court.

Sir,

With reference to your kind order dated 01.08.2014 on the subject cited above, I have the honour to inform you that I had proceeded Taidu, South Tripura in the morning on 03.04.2014 (Sunday) at 7.30 A.M. and reached there at 9.30 A.M. and I have handed over copy of the said Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 25.07.2014 of Hon''ble High Court to the Claimants at their residence, namely (1) Smt.Harati Kalai (Debbarma), W/o., Lt. Sukumani Debbarma of vill. & P.S. Taidu, South Tripura District in connection with Case No. MAC. APP. No. 01 of 2004 (2) Sri Jayanta Kalai, S/o., Sri Manrai Kalai of vill.- Palkupara, P.S. Taidu, South Tripura District in connection with Case No. MAC APP. No. 02 of 2004 (3) Sri Birendra Kalai, S/o., Sri Kukurani Kalai of village-Palku, P.S. Taidu, South Tripura District in connection with Case No. MAC APP. 06 of 2004 after taking signature in the photocopy of the forwarding letters issued from this Registry which are enclosed herewith.

In compliance with the said Judgment & Order (Oral) dated 25.7.2014 of the Hon''ble High Court, I have explained them in person directly the import of the said order and informed them that if they so desire to approach the Hon''ble Supreme Court then they can approach the Supreme Court Legal Services committee for Legal Aid etc. I have given them proper assistance to ensure that if they want to go to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, they may do so.

The copy of the Judgment & order (oral) dated 25.07.2014 of the Hon''ble High Court could not be handed over to one of the claimant namely Smt. Jayanti Kalai, W/o., Tabil Kalai of Vill.-South Taidu, P.S. Taidu in connection with case No. MAC APP. No. 03 of 2004 in person as she was not available in her house. Her husband Shri Tabil Kalai informed me that she was presently residing with her daughter at Agartala for the last one month. However, I have handed over the copy of the said order of the Hon''ble High Court to her husband Shri Tabil Kalai and explained him the import of the order and advised him how to approach the Supreme Court Legal Aid committee if the said Smt. Jayanti Kalai desires to approach the Hon''ble Supreme Court. I have given him proper assistance to ensure that if she wants to go to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, she may do so. The husband of the claimant petitioner assured me that he would inform the same to his wife Smt. Jayanti Kalai, claimant. In testimony of delivery of copy of the order of Hon''ble High Court, I have taken signature of Shri Tabil Kalai in the copy of the forwarding letter issued from this Registry which is enclosed herewith.

All the above said persons belong to Scheduled Tribe Community, but all of them very conveniently understand Bengali and can also speak in Bengali. Thus, I explained them in Bengali the import of order of Hon''ble High Court as well as my advise them as regards how to approach Hon''ble Supreme Court Legal Aid committee for preferring any appeal against the said order of the Hon''ble High Court to the Hon''ble Supreme court and they clearly understood everything though in apprehension that they may not understand Bengali I also took one Shri Pranjit Deb Barma, Peon of S.D.J.M. establishment of Amarpur who is conversant in their language.

It is pertinent to mention here that Claimant petitioner Smt. Harati Kalai (Debbarma), W/o., Lt. Sukumani Debbarma of Taidu, South Tripura in Case No. MAC. APP. No. 01 of 2004 has informed me that the Claimant-appellant No. 2 of that case Smt. Mangaleswari Debbarma, W/o., Lt. Budhurai Debbarma of village-Taidu, P.S. Taidu, South Tripura District had died in the year 2007 though she could not remember the exact date of death. So, the copy of the Judgment & Order could not be served upon her.

This is for your kind information.

Yours faithfully,

Date: 5.8.2014

Sd/- (S. Chakraborty) Deputy Registrar (Admn.)"

The matter was then listed on 25-08-2014. On this date, Sri S.K. Datta, learned counsel for the appellants, stated that the appellants proposed to challenge the order passed by this Court on 25-07-2014 in the Apex Court. The cases were adjourned to 05-11-2014 on his request. However, it was made clear that since the appeals are of the year 2004, i.e. more than 10 years old and relate to an accident which took place in the year 1995, no further adjournment will be granted. On 05-11-2014, Sri Datta stated that the claimants have not challenged the order of transfer before the Apex Court and, therefore, the matters were heard.

The only point urged by Sri Datta at the time of hearing was that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had wrongly held that vehicle No. TRT-2565 was not involved in the accident. He submitted that the learned Tribunal had wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company of vehicle No. TRT-2565. The other vehicle involved in the accident, i.e. TRT-229 is admittedly not insured.

Briefly stated, the facts relevant for decision of these appeals are that the claimants in all the four claim petitions filed petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) claiming compensation. In T.S.(MAC) 487 of 1996, the claimant Smti. Hiran Das claimed compensation for the death of her husband. In T.S.(MAC) 488 of 1996, the claimants Smti. Harati Kalai and Smti. Mangaleswari Debbarma claimed compensation on account of death of Sukumani Debbarma being the wife and mother of the deceased. In claim petition T.S.(MAC) 489 of 1996, the claimant Smti. Jayanti Kalai claimed compensation for death of her son. In claim petitions T.S.(MAC) 92 of 1997 Girindra Chandra Paul, in T.S.(MAC) 94 of 1997 Birendra Kalai and in T.S.(MAC) 95 of 1997 Jayanta Kalai and Smti. Maniti Kalai, the claimants claimed compensation for injuries suffered by them. Two of the claimants have not filed appeal and there are only four appeals before this Court.

The allegation of the claimants was that on 23-01-1995 the victims along with many other persons were travelling from Teliamura towards Taidu in a jeep bearing registration No. TRT-229. It was alleged that when this vehicle reached Dhalaicherra, another vehicle (jeep) bearing registration No. TRT-2565 came from behind. The second jeep bearing No. TRT-2565 was being driven rashly and negligently and while trying to overtake jeep No. TRT-229 in which the deceased and injured were travelling, it hit vehicle No.TRT-229. As a result of this collision, vehicle No.TRT-229 went off the road and fell into a lunga (gorge), as a result of which some passengers died and some received injuries.

The owner-cum-driver of vehicle No. TRT-229 filed written statement in only two cases but he gave no details of the accident. As far as respondent No. 2, the owner of TRT-2565 is concerned, he admitted the allegations that accident had taken place but according to him, the accident took place due to sudden failure of steering wheel.

The Insurance Company sought leave of the Court to contest the petitions on all grounds and it was alleged that the claim petitions had been filed in connivance with the owner of vehicle No. TRT-2565 and according to the Insurance Company, this vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. It was alleged that the claimants and the owner of vehicle No. TRT-2565 had colluded in filing the claim petition.

After trial, the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the vehicle No. TRT-2565 was not at all involved in the accident and that the accident had occurred only on account of the negligence of the driver of vehicle No. TRT-229 and hence, after assessing the compensation held that only Sri Nanda Gopal Roy, the owner and driver of the said vehicle was liable to pay the compensation since he had not produced any document to show that the vehicle was insured.

Sri S.K. Datta, learned counsel for the claimants, has challenged the award and has urged that the learned trial Court wrongly decided that vehicle No. TRT-2565 was not involved in the accident. Other than the two claimants who are injured, the other claimants are not eye witnesses to the accident and have no knowledge about the same.

The claimants, however, examined one Kishore Kr. Kalai (PW-2). He stated that he was travelling in jeep No.TRT-2565 and when this vehicle tried to overtake vehicle No. TRT-229, there was a collision. According to him, the vehicle No. TRT-2565 was stopped at a little distance and he and some other passengers of vehicle No. TRT-2565 got down but then the driver fled away with the vehicle. This witness did not report the matter to the police or any other authority.

Another witness examined is Gopal Singh. According to him, he was also travelling in vehicle No. TRT-2565. He states that after the accident they asked the driver of TRT-2565 to stop the vehicle and the injured persons who were travelling in TRT-229 were taken to Teliamura Hospital in an Ambassador vehicle. He does not say that the driver of vehicle No. TRT-2565 ran away from the spot. There is no explanation why the injured persons were not carried to the hospital in vehicle No. TRT-2565 which was also travelling in the same direction. He has been cross-examined and he was unable to state the registration number of any of the vehicles in which the injured were carried to hospital.

One of the claimants Jayanta Kalai stated that he was travelling in the vehicle which was hit by vehicle No. TRT-2565. It is not understood how he could make this statement because even as per the case of the claimants, vehicle No. TRT-229 was hit from behind. This witness states that he was shifted to the hospital at Agartala but does not mention how he was carried to the hospital.

Another claimant Birendra Kalai also made a statement that he had sustained injuries in an accident involving both the vehicles including TRT-2565. This witness in cross-examination admitted that he had made a statement before the learned S.D.J.M., Amarpur in the criminal case. He was confronted with the statement which is Exhibit-E in which there is no mention of a second vehicle. He further volunteered that he had made a false statement before the learned Magistrate. It is difficult to rely upon the statement of such a claimant who states that in the criminal case he admittedly made a totally false statement suppressing the true facts.

Another witness examined is Madhusudan Das. His statement is similar to that of Gopal Singh. He could not state whether any report in the police station was lodged with regard to the accident.

The Insurance Company also examined certain witnesses and produced some documents. Exhibit-A is the copy of the FIR in G.R. 20 of 1995 in the Court of S.D.J.M., Amarpur. Exhibit-B is the copy of the deposition of DW-1 recorded in the said criminal case as PW-1. Exhibit-C is the copy of the deposition of DW-2 recorded in the said criminal case as PW-4. Exhibit-A-1 is the signature of DW-3 on the FIR and Exhibit-D is the seizure list of vehicle No. TRT-229 prepared by DW-3. Exhibit-E is the statement of claimant Birendra Kalai in T.S.(MAC) 94 of 1997 which has been referred to above.

DW-1, Nirmal Chandra Saha, in his deposition stated that on 23-01-1995 he was travelling in vehicle No. TRT-229. According to him, there were about 15 persons travelling in the said vehicle. This vehicle went off the road into a lunga (gorge) and struck against a big tree. He states that there was no other vehicle nearby. This witness has proved the FIR from the record of G.R. 20 of 1995 and has stated that the FIR was written at his instance and is signed by him. He has also stated that he thereafter appeared in the criminal case before the S.D.J.M., Amarpur where his statement was recorded and this statement is marked as Exhibit-B. This witness has clearly stated that the vehicle No. TRT-229 was being driven by Nanda Gopal Roy. In cross-examination, he has stated that he was sitting in the front seat of the vehicle.

DW-2, Bimal Sarkar, has also made a similar statement. He was also travelling in the vehicle No. TRT-229. He appeared in the criminal case as PW-4 and has also stated that no other vehicle was involved in the accident.

DW-3, S.I. Biswa Ranjan Majumder, is the Investigating Officer. He states that on 23-01-1995 DW-1, Nirmal Ch. Saha, filed an FIR regarding accident of vehicle No. TRT-229. In the FIR, the name of the driver was mentioned as Nanda Gopal Roy who absconded after the accident. He then investigated the case and seized the vehicle involved in the accident. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 of Cr.P.C. According to him, only vehicle No. TRT-229 was involved in the accident and there was no evidence showing the involvement of any other vehicle in the said accident.

DW-4 is the second Investigating Officer who took over the investigation from DW-3. He states that the criminal case was finally filed only against the driver of vehicle No. TRT-229 and no other vehicle was involved in the accident.

The learned trial Court after elaborately discussing the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the claimants had put up a false case. The owners of both the vehicles chose to stay away at the time of hearing of the claim petition and did not step into the witness box. Neither Nani Gopal Roy nor Sukdeb Datta cared to step into the witness box. After filing written statement, they took no further part in the case.

Normally, the evidence led in a criminal case cannot be read as evidence in a motor accident case but in the present case, the author of the FIR and the witnesses of the criminal case along with the Investigating Officers have been examined in the claim petitions and they have proved their statements made in the criminal case. In fact, one of the claimants Birendra Kalai has also admitted that in his statement made on oath before the Magistrate, he did not make any mention of the vehicle No. TRT-2565. The statement of this witness is disproved by his statement made before the criminal Court. The statements of the other two witnesses relied by the claimants do not inspire any confidence because they have never appeared before the police nor made any effort to get the FIR lodged. The presence of these witnesses has rightly been held to be highly doubtful by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. There are material inconsistencies in their statements. One witness states that the driver of TRT-2565 stopped the vehicle and another Ambassador vehicle was going by the side of the road in which the injured persons were shifted to hospital. Neither the number of the Ambassador vehicle nor the name of the driver of such vehicle has been disclosed. The other witness does not talk about any Ambassador vehicle being present. The injured-claimants who had appeared in the witness box did not mention the names of the alleged eye witnesses. The statements of DW-1 and DW-2 read with the statement of DW-3 make it more than amply clear that there was no accident with vehicle No. TRT-2565 but the accident was only of TRT-229 which went off the road into the gorge. It appears that because the vehicle No. TRT-229 was not insured, a false case was set up that another vehicle was involved in the accident and the owner of the vehicle connived with the claimants while filing the written statement but did not have the guts to step into the witness box.

The two Investigating Officers, i.e. DW-3 and DW-4, have no personal axe to grind. DW-3 rushed to the place of occurrence immediately after the accident. He did not find any evidence of existence of any other vehicle. In the statement of the witnesses recorded by him, there was nothing to indicate that any other vehicle was involved in the accident. The accident occurred at 5-45 p.m. and the FIR was lodged within 45 minutes at 6-30 p.m. This is the first version of the accident given by a person who was travelling in the vehicle, i.e. DW-1. This earliest version is apparently the correct version and the statement of DW-1 has been fully supported by another witness, DW-2. Even the claimant Birendra Kalai admitted in his cross-examination that in his statement before the S.D.J.M. (Exhibit-E), he had made no mention of vehicle No. TRT-2565.

At this stage, it would also be pertinent to mention that though in these appeals filed by the claimants the only argument was that vehicle No. TRT-2565 was involved in the accident, the National Insurance Company Ltd. with which the said vehicle was insured was not made a party in the appeals even though it was a party in the proceedings before the Tribunal and its name was reflected in the memo of parties. It is obvious that an attempt was being made to get an award against the owner of vehicle No. TRT-2565 at the back of the Insurance Company. It was only when this Court pointed out that the Insurance Company has not been arrayed as a party that applications were filed on 29-01-2014 for impleading the Insurance Company as a party.

I am constrained to observe that in the State of Tripura in the last one year and nine months, I have seen a large number of totally false cases being filed claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. Normally, this Court is very sympathetic to claimants in motor accident cases and the evidence is never scanned very carefully. The Courts may be liberal and sympathetic to victims of motor vehicle accidents but this sympathy cannot be extended to such an extent that false cases are permitted to be filed and claimants should not be awarded money when the allegations made in the claim petitions are totally false. The accident took place in January, 1995 and all the claim petitions were filed much later in the year 1996 and 1997. By this time, the claimants were aware that vehicle No. TRT-229 was not insured and, therefore, a totally false case was set up. I have carefully gone through the entire evidence, both documentary and oral and in my opinion, there is no doubt that the learned Tribunal was fully justified in coming to the conclusion that a totally false case has been set up by the claimants insofar as vehicle No. TRT-2565 is concerned.

In view of the above discussion, I find no merit in the appeals which are accordingly rejected.

Send down the lower Court records forthwith.