Manika Saha And Ors vs Ranjan Das And Ors

This appeal is filed by the claimants to challenge the award dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.T.S.(MAC) 253 of 2013.

Brief facts are as under:

Claimants are legal heirs of deceased Biplab Saha. According to the claimants, Biplab Saha was proceeding from his house towards Bankumari bazaar in Agartala on 12.03.2013 at about 1p.m. in the afternoon. On the way at a place where Young Star Play Forum and Organisation is situated, a motorcycle owned by the opponent No.1 and insured by the opponent No.2 insurance company, came from the opposite direction and collided with the deceased on the back side. According to the claimants, this accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the opponent No.1. In the accident, Biplab Saha received serious head injuries. He was first shifted to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala. From there he was taken to Kolkata for further treatment. However, on 18.05.2013 he succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged about 36 years. He was selling sweets in Tulsibati bazaar. His wife, two minor children and mother, therefore, filed the said claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (rupees fifty lakhs) from the owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

The opponents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Claims Tribunal and denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. In particular, opponent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, contended that his vehicle was not involved in the accident at all. The claimants examined the widow of the deceased whose deposition was largely relevant in the context of the events after the accident took place as also the occupation and income of the deceased. She was not an eyewitness to the accident and, therefore, had no first hand information about the involvement of the motorcycle of the opponent No.1. The claimants examined one Subrata Roy (PW-2) who claimed to be an eyewitness to the accident. The opponents No.1 and 2 both cross-examined him on the issue of involvement of the motorcycle in the accident. PW-3, Habul Deb also claimed to be an eyewitness. His deposition was also challenged by the opponents.

The Claims Tribunal by the impugned award dismissed the claim petition on the ground that involvement of the motorcycle of the opponent No.1 was not established. Learned Judge noted that no FIR was filed after the accident. For the accident which took place on 12.03.2013 a complaint was lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 08.05.2013 which was forwarded to the police station and which was registered as a criminal case. There was no explanation why FIR was not lodged earlier though the witnesses claiming to be eyewitnesses had also stated that some other 8 or 10 people had gathered soon after the accident. Learned Judge noted that even after registering the case as forwarded by the Magistrate the police had not filed a charge-sheet indicating that even according to the police investigation involvement of the vehicle was not established. The learned Judge also noted that in the claim petition the claimants had not indicated whether the deceased was himself proceeding on foot or travelling on a motorcycle. He also found it difficult to believe that a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction could have collided with the deceased on the back side as was suggested by the witnesses.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, I do not find that the learned Judge has committed any error. Significantly, both the witnesses, PW-2 and 3 who claimed to be eyewitnesses, had stated that they were the neighbours of the claimants. They knew the claimants. Thus, at the site of the accident which took place away from the residence of the deceased, two eyewitnesses were stated to be available who incidentally happened to be his neighbours. Further, these witnesses have agreed that at the time of accident some other 8 or 10 persons were present. None of these persons were examined as witnesses. Further, if both the proclaimed eyewitnesses, PW-2 and 3 were acquainted with the deceased and had also seen the accident, it is difficult to appreciate why no FIR was filed shortly after the accident. In fact, PW-2 claimed that he had tried to chase the motorcyclist after the accident but was unsuccessful.

Thus, clearly it was a case of hit and run accident. It is because the precise manner in which the accident took place was not clear, the claimants in the claim petition have given a vague account. Firstly, the claimants did not state whether the deceased himself was walking or travelling on a motorcycle. Further the claimants made a vague statement that a motorcycle coming from the opposite direction had collided with the deceased from the back side. As noted, PW-2 and 3, who claimed to be eyewitnesses also happened to be the neighbours of the deceased. It has come on record that the claimants had tendered affidavits in the form of examination-in-chief of some additional witnesses claiming to be eyewitnesses but they never turned up for cross-examination. Learned counsel for the insurance company Mrs. Sujata Deb (Gupta) further pointed out that upon completion of the investigation into the complaint, the police had not submitted a charge-sheet holding that involvement of the motorcycle was not established. She further submitted that at the instance of the complainant, the Court had directed further investigation after which also the conclusion of the investigating agency remained the same at which stage the complainant had approached the Court for further a fresh investigation and the matter is pending at that stage.

Considering all these aspects of the matter, I find no merits in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Records may be transmitted to the concerned Claims Tribunal.