Hamid Ali And 3 Ors vs Assam State Transport Corporation, Tezpur And Ors

Heard Mr. A. Ganguly, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/ASTC.

This appeal is by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 22-12-2011 passed by the MACT, Tezpur in MAC Case No. 309/2007.

One Mulukjan Bibi and others filed a claim petition before the MACT, Tezpur praying forcompensation for the death of Sukur Ali, husband of

claimant No. 1 in a motor vehicle accident. It was stated in the claim petition that on 31-05-2007 when Sukur Ali was proceeding to market on foot,

the vehicle bearing registration no. AS-20-0796 hit him from backside and consequently, he sustained injuries. Immediately the injured was shifted to

Kanaklata Civil Hospital, wherefrom he was taken to Gauhati Medical College Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. Hence the claim petition

was filed.

In the claim petition it was stated that the victim died on 28-06-2007. The claim was contestedby the Insurance Co. In the written statement, the

accident and the death of the victim was not denied. The plea of the insured or insurer was that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of

the driver of the vehicle. The learned tribunal having found certain discrepancy with regard to death of the victim dismissed the claim petition. The

claimants stated in the claim petition, that after 28 days of treatment, the deceased died on 28-06-2007, whereas the post mortem examination was

conducted on 10-06-07. There was also some discrepancies with regard to the age of the deceased and because of such discrepancy with regard to

date of death, learned tribunal entertained a doubt as to the genuineness of the claim and dismissed the claim petition.

Aggrieved the claimants preferred the appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellants Mr. Ganguly submits, that the accident was not disputed bythe Insurance Co. and the victim having sustained

injury in the accident was also established by the accident information report, which was proved as Ex. 1, however, the learned tribunal did not take

into consideration those documents. Evidently a GD Entry was also made with regard to the accident. When the accident involving the vehicle and the

victim having sustained injury was not in dispute, in my considered view, learned tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition only on the sole

ground that there was discrepancy with regard to date of death mentioned in the claim petition and the date of conducting the post mortem

examination. Apparently the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the police report showing that the victim sustained injuries in the accident.

It is to be borne in mind that a proceeding before the MACT is not adversarial proceeding,rather, it is an enquiry to be conducted by the tribunal as

per mandate of Section 168 of the MV Act, to determine compensation for the victim who died of a vehicular accident. Therefore, the tribunal is also

under obligation to hold the enquiry properly and to see that the bona fide victim of the motor vehicle accident are not deprived of the compensation

for any technicalities.Â

From the materials brought on record, it appears that the victim having sustained injury in theaccident involving the vehicle, and his treatment at

Kanaklata Civil Hospital and then in Gauhati Medical College were not in dispute. It is no doubt true, that the claimant did not prove the document,

showing the treatment of the deceased in the Gauhati Medical College and as well as his death during treatment. Be that as it may, when the accident

and also the claimant having sustained injury was not disputed, it was also the responsibility of the tribunal to enquire about the matter to ascertain the

truth.

In a proceeding before claims tribunal, standard of proof cannot be higher than that of thepreponderance of probability and in any case it could not

be that of beyond doubt. Tribunal should see whether some evidence were brought on record to establish the fact by the standard of preponderance of

probability. Even if the tribunal entertain any doubt, there was no bar in further enquiring the matter to ascertain the truth in order to reach the object

of determining just compensation.

From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that tribunal failed to discharge itsobligation vested by Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle

Act. Therefore, the impugned order dismissing the claim petition cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order

stands set aside.

Since the learned tribunal has not decided the matter on merit taking into account all thematerials brought on record, I am of the view that, it will

be in the fitness of the matter to send back the case to the tribunal for deciding the claim afresh. Having considered, that the case is a very old

pending one, the parties are directed to appear before the learned tribunal on 23/7/2018 to seek further instruction. No notice need be served on the

parties. The tribunal shall make an endeavour to decide the claim within 4 (four) months from the date of appearance of the parties, if necessary

giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence.

Send back the LCR immediately.