AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This appeal is by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 29.02.2016passed by the MACT, No. 3, Kamrup in MAC Case No.
1030/2013.
The facts of the case in a nutshell are that Bhabesh deka was travelling on a motorcycleas pillion rider from Baihata towards Rangia and the truck
bearing registration No. AS-25-A8998 was proceeding ahead of the motorcycle. The driver of the truck suddenly stopped the truck applying break on
the middle of the road, and consequently, the motorcycle hit the truck from the rear side. It was stated that the accident occurred due to rash &
negligent driving of the truck. Bhabesh Deka sustained injury and died. The legal representatives of the deceased Bhabesh Das filed a claim petition
seeking compensation and the learned Tribunal by the impugned judgment dismissed the claim petition.
Aggrieved, the claimant preferred the instant appeal.
Perusal of the record transpires that no eye witness was examined in the instant case. One Sri Hemanta Nath Goswami, examined as PW-2,
projected himself as an eye witness and sated in his evidence-in-chief, that he was waiting near Chepti and at that point of time, the victim was going
on a motorcycle as pillion rider. A truck which was also proceeding ahead of the motorcycle, due to rash & negligent driving, suddenly applied break
in the middle of the road and consequently, the motorcycle hit rear side of the truck causing the accident. During cross examination, he stated that he
himself was proceeding on a motorcycle as pillion rider and the truck was ahead of him. Due to sudden application of break by the truck, the
motorcycle, which he was riding as a pillion, hit the truck from rear side. Marshalling the testimony of this witness, the learned Tribunal observed that
the PW-2 was a lier and his testimony had demolished the entire claim.
Evidently, the specific case of the claimant was that the accident occurred due to rash &negligent driving of the truck. No evidence was adduced
by the owner/driver or insurer of the truck to substantiate, that accident occurred solely due to fault of the deceased. Therefore, only because the
PW-2 was not found worthy of trust, that could not be a ground for rejecting the entire claim without having considered other materials on record.
When the respondent owner/driver and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle did not come forward to adduce any evidence, nor there was any other
evidence to establish that the accident occurred solely due to fault of the deceased, learned Tribunal ought not to have taken a presumption on mere
surmise and conjecture. The learned Tribunal appeared to have proceeded on a wrong premise and, without properly appreciating the evidence and
material brought on record dismissed the claim petition on a presumption, having no evidentiary or factual support and as such, the impugned order
cannot be sustained. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside.
Since the Tribunal has not decided the matter on merit or even did not appreciate thematerial brought on record, it will be in the fitness of the matter
to send back the case to the Tribunal to decide the claim afresh, if necessary giving opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence.
The parties shall appear before the concerned Tribunal on 08.08.2018 to receive furtherinstruction. No fresh notice need be served upon the
parties. An endeavor shall be made by the Tribunal to decide the claim, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of
appearance of the parties.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Send back the LCR.