Smt. Durshan Kaur and Others vs Abhimanyu Sahoo and Another

L. Mohapatra, J.—This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30th June, 1992 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur in Misc. (A) Case No. 220 of 1989 (K).

The widow, sons and daughters of the deceased Karam Singh had filed the claim petition for payment of compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/-(Rupees six lakhs). It is alleged in the claim petition that on 30th June, 1989 at about 3.00 P.M. the deceased was going from Barbil to Jamda by scooter Bearing No. BRS 7695. Near Balkundi Chhak the offending bus bearing Registration No. ORJ 6601 coming from the opposite direction at very high speed in a rash and negligent manner moved to its extreme right and collided with the scooter. Because of the said accident, the deceased fell down on the ground and sustained severe injuries on his head and other parts of the body. The deceased was shifted to Chaibasa Government Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. The owner of the offending vehicle filled the written statement stating that the bus was moving slowly on its left side but the deceased who was going in the scooter in the drunken state suddenly turned to its right and dashed against the bus. It was also contended that the vehicle was insured with the Respondent No. 2 covering the period of accident. The Respondent No. 2 also filed the written statement denying any knowledge of the accident. On the basis of such pleading, the Tribunal framed two issues and relying on the report of the M.V.I. (Ext. C) came to the conclusion that the deceased was driving the scooter in rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident. Having found the deceased to be rash and negligent in driving the scooter, the Tribunal refused to award and compensation.

The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that P.W. 2 examined on behalf of the claimant-appellants had specifically stated that he had seen the deceased coming in the scooter on the extreme left of the road. The offending bus came from the opposite direction in high speed and suddenly turned to its right and hit the deceased. Because of the said accident, the deceased fell down from the scooter and sustained severe injuries. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellants, when there is an eye-witness to the occurrence, there was no reason for the Tribunal to rely on the report of the M.V.I. and refuse to pass any award. Apart from the above, it is contended by the Learned Counsel that the driver of the offending vehicle had been charged sheeted, which clearly indicates that the driver of the vehicle was also found to be negligent. The Learned Counsel for the insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that the M.V.I. report is to be given more importance and the M.V.I. having found that the deceased was negligent in driving the scooter, the same was rightly accepted by the Tribunal.

On perusal of the evidence of P.W. 2, it appears that he is an eye-witness to the occurrence and he was vividly described the manner in which the accident took place. If his evidence is to be accepted, then it is the driver, who was driving the bus in rash and negligent manner. The M.V.I. report indicates that the bus was on the left side of the road and the scooter moved to its extreme right and dashed against the left edge of the bus. However, from Ext. 5, it appears that the driver of the vehicle had been charge sheeted which obviously shows that upon police investigation the driver of the bus was also found negligent in driving the vehicle. This aspect of the matter has not at all been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while coming to a conclusion that the deceased was negligent in driving the scooter. In my view, the matter should be considered by the Tribunal.

I accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and direct the Tribunal to hear the arguments from the parties again and decide the claim case on its own merit. If the Tribunal think it proper, it may allow the parties to adduce further evidence and all efforts shall be to dispose of the Claim as early as possible, the same being of the year 1969.