Mostt. Dayamanti Devi, Manoj Kumar Singh, Arun Kumar Singh and Ajit Kumar Singh vs Mostt. Rajeya Khatoon and Others

Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 28th April, 2007 passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Claims Tribunal, East Champaran, Motihari in Claim Case No. 55 of 2003 allowing the claim for compensation on account of the death of the husband of the claimant no.1 in the accident in question. The short facts are that the husband of the claimant no. 1 namely, Basiullah was going on Motorcycle bearing registration No. BR-05A-7441 from Naukagola, however, on way when he reached near Girls High School, Ramgarhwa at about 7.30 pm he met an accident with the commander jeep bearing registration No. BRO-5AP-5161 coming from the opposite side in high speed which was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the jeep. In the result the said jeep dashed with the motorcycle of Basiullah causing severe injuries and later on he died. The first information report was lodged by one Sibjatullah vide Ramgarhwa P.S. Case No. 112 of 2003. The post mortem of the dead body was conducted. Other documents were also filed relating to the motorcycle which were exhibited. The claimant claimed compensation from the owner of the vehicle. In support of the claim witnesses were examined which was been taken note and considered by the Tribunal in the order under the appeal. Upon considering the evidence on the record compensation of Rs. 2,72,000/- with interest @ 6% as also the compensation towards the funeral expenses, consortium and loss of estate was allowed with direction to the opposite party Raj Kishore Singh to pay the entire compensation amount to the claimant within a month from the date of the order. Said Raj Kishore Singh being aggrieved filed the present Miscellaneous Appeal and during the pendency of this appeal Raj Kishore Singh, the owner of the vehicle, died and was substituted by his legal representatives, who were pressing this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on the basis of the evidence on the record it could not be established by the claimant with cogent evidence that the jeep in question dashed the motorcycle which was being driven by the deceased. As such, the order under the appeal deserves to be set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that in support of the claim the claimant examined eye witnesses. It is further submitted that on perusal of the evidence of the claimant witnesses no. 1, 2 & 5, who have seen the occurrence, it appears that they have categorically stated in their evidence that the jeep in question dashed the motorcycle causing severe injury to Basiullah who later on died. In other words, it is submitted that eye witnesses have supported the case of the claimant that the jeep in question was being driven rashly and negligently on a high speed hitting the motorcycle in question resulting into the ultimate death of the husband of the claimant no.1. Learned counsel further submits that the DW 1, the son of the owner of the offending vehicle as also not denied the fact of death of the deceased.

Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties, it would appear that the claimant witnesses have supported the case of the claimant. The eye witnesses CW No. 1, 2 & 5 have clearly stated about the accident in question. It further appears that to counter the claim of the claimant the opposite party could not bring on record any substantial evidence on the record to dispute the claim. On perusal of the order under the appeal, I find that the Court below has taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record to hold that the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay the compensation as calculated in the appeal in paragraph 16 of the order under the appeal. I do not find any material to take a different view of the matter. The findings of the Court below are well supported with the evidence on the record. In the result, for the reasons and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. However, in case the amount of compensation has not been paid, the appellants are directed to pay the amount within a period of three months from today.