Prativa Deka And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.

Heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. R. Borah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 30.01.2013 passed by MACT No.1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No.

2316/2008, whereby the learned tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

One Ajay Deka (since deceased) died in a motor vehicle accident on 31/07/2008, involving the vehicle bearing registration No.00E-62075.

The brief facts of the case are that while the deceased was proceeding by driving his motorcycle, the offending vehicle was moving ahead of the

deceased and due to sudden application of break, without indication, the motorcycle hit the rear side of the truck. It was alleged that because of rash

and negligent driving and sudden application of break by the driver of the truck, without any indication, the accident occurred and the driver of the

truck was solely responsible for the accident. The driver of the offending vehicle took the plea that the truck was parked on the side of the road and

deceased hit the stationary truck from rear side. Further plea of the driver of the truck was that he was acquitted in the criminal case. Learned

tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding, that the driver of the truck was not at fault.

Aggrieved by the said judgment, the claimant appellant preferred the instant appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mannan submits that the learned tribunal, while coming to the conclusion that the driver of the offending

truck was not at fault, swayed by the judgment of the criminal court and failed to consider the evidence and materials brought on record. Mr. Mannan

further contends, that in a proceeding before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the tribunal is to adjudicate the claim independently on the basis of

the evidence and materials brought before it, and should not be swayed by the decision of the criminal case, without considering the evidence and

materials brought before the tribunal. It is also contended that in a proceeding before the tribunal, the tribunal is to weigh the evidence in the

touchstone of preponderance of probability and not by the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra, the contention of the learned

counsel for the respondent is that the tribunal having considered the evidence on record rightly dismissed the claim petition.

I have perused the judgment and award impugned.

Perusal of the judgment and award transpires that the learned tribunal did not at all discuss the evidence adduced by the claimant and basing more

or less solely on the judgment and finding in the criminal case, came to the finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at fault. From the

impugned judgment it appears, that some presumptions were also taken by the learned tribunal on the basis of the findings of the criminal court,

without properly appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties. However, I deem it proper to refrain myself from commenting on those facts,

reason being that such comment may influence the tribunal in future adjudication of the claim, in the event of remanding the matter back to the

tribunal, as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Be that as it may, while going through the entire judgment, I find that the learned tribunal

did not consider properly the evidence brought before it by the parties and mostly relying on the findings of the criminal court, held that the driver of

the offending vehicle was not responsible for the accident. It is the settled principle of law, that a proceeding before the tribunal is an independent

proceeding and tribunal is supposed to adjudicate the claim independently on the basis of the evidence brought before it. Though the judgment of the

criminal case or any material proved as per law can be taken into consideration, the tribunal cannot decide the matter solely on the basis of the

findings of the criminal court, without considering the evidence and materials brought on record by the parties in course of the enquiry. Learned

tribunal is found to have misdirected itself, while dismissing the claim petition, basing on the findings of the criminal court and, in that view of the

matter, the award is required to be set aside. Accordingly, I do so.

Since the claim petition was not decided properly on the basis of the evidence and materials brought on record, it will be in the fitness of the matter

to remand back the case to the learned tribunal to decide it afresh on the basis of the evidence and materials brought on record. Having considered

that the accident took place in the year 2008 and in the meantime, the matter is considerably delayed, the parties are directed to appear before the

learned

tribunal on 10 July, 2018 to seek further instructions. The tribunal shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as far as practicable within 3

(three) months from the date of appearance of the parties.

Send back the LCR immediately.