Somy Chakma vs Sabitri Salt Suppliers

Mr. Deepak Gupta, C.J.(Oral)—On 26.11.2015, this Court had passed a detailed order, which reads as follows:-

"I have gone through the records of the connected matters.

The statement of the petitioner-appellant in this case was recorded as PW-3 in T.S. (MAC) 08 of 2005 and T.S. (MAC) 09 of 2005.

The petitioner has made certain averments in that statement which are totally different from what has been stated in the claim petition filed by him and also by way of evidence on record.

The petitioner-appellant Somy Chakma is, therefore, directed to appear in person before this Court on 06.01.2016. He shall produce the documents relating to his ration card, his Adhar Card, his voter identity card and other documents to show where he was residing at the time when the claim petition was filed on 06.03.2006.

List the matter on 06.01.2016."

This Court had found that the averments made by the petitioner in his statement were totally different from the averments made in the claim petition. In the claim petition it was alleged that Sri Somy Chakma is a resident of Durjoynagar, Police Station � Airport, District � West Tripura. It was also alleged that the occupation of the petitioner was business. It would be pertinent to mention that earlier it has been typed "Teacher of one important English medium school" but these words have been scored off and replaced by the word "Business" in hand. There was nothing stated in the petition as to what was the nature of his business and where he was running such business. It is also more than obvious that since the accident allegedly took place at Pecharthal, the petitioner had some business in that area only because it was alleged that the accident took place when the injured was coming back from the market.

The claim petition filed by the claimant was rejected because there were certain major contradictions in the statement of the claimant in his statement and in the claim petition filled by him. Therefore this Court had passed the aforesaid order.

It is stated by Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel that Sri Somy Chakma has left the State of Tripura many years back and he has been unable to contact him. According to Mr. Roy he does not have any contact address of Sri Somy Chakma. It is therefore, obvious that Sri Somy Chakma is not interested in prosecuting the appeal.

Even otherwise, on merit, I find that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the claimant had failed to prove that he suffered injuries in the accident in question. The petitioner in his affidavit has not even given the number of the motor cycle on which he was purportedly travelling when the accident took place. The opposite party had denied the allegation that his vehicle was involved in the accident. The claim petition was filed more than 2 years after the alleged accident. Even in the FIR and complaint the name of the claimant Somy Chakma is not mentioned as the person riding on the motor cycle. The owner of the motor cycle on which the petitioner was allegedly travelling has not been made a party to the case. The claimant in cross-examination states that he does not know the name of the owner. In this view of the matter, the learned trial Court was justified in holding that it cannot be believed that the petitioner was travelling on a motor cycle but does not know the name of the owner or the number of the motor cycle. No documents from the hospital of Pecharthal have been produced to show that the petitioner was immediately taken to Pecharthal hospital. Adverse inference was rightly drawn against the petitioner by the learned trial Court. The petitioner has only submitted some documents from Silchar Nightingale hospital but those are of a later date and he has not given any explanation why he has not produced the documents from Pecharthal. Even though the appeal is being pending for many years no effort has been made to file any further documents.

Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.

Send down the lower court records forthwith.