Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 841 (JHR)

Md. Nijamuddin v. Rajeshwar Prasad

2008-07-30

JAYA ROY, M.Y.EQBAL

body2008
Order Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.5.2007 passed by the Claims Tribunal, Gumla in MACC (MJC) case no. 6/2002 whereby he has dismissed the claim application filed by the appellants-claimants on the ground that the deceased was not having a valid driving license to drive the motorcycle and there is contradiction in the statements of PW-1 and the informant. 3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- One Imtiyaz Khan was a motorcycle mechanic. On the fateful date of accident the cousin brother of the deceased. Imran came on a motorcycle in his shop and informed about the technical defect in his motorcycle. He requested for sitting upon the motorcycle and understanding the defect. The motorcycle was being driven by the deceased, Imran. Both were going towards Kartik Oraon college. It was alleged that while driving the motorcycle slowly passing in front of the Rotary Club. all of a sudden tractor bearing registration no. JH 07 A 1420-1421 which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle from behind as a result of which both the occupants of motorcycle fell down and the deceased. loran, succumbed to his injuries. 4. Evidence was led by the claimants in support of the fact that the tractor was betng driven rashly and negligently due to which the accident took place. 5. The Tribunal considered the evidences adduced by the claimants-witnesses which has been discussed in detail In para-11 of the judgment which is reproduced herein-below:- "Thus. it appears from the statement of PW-1. PW-2, PW-3 that on the day of accident the motorcycle was closed he was carrying the motorcycle by dashing near the Rotary Club. Rotary Club is located at Palkot. The Rotary Club was dashing by Md. lmran and Md. lmtiyaz. The Palkot road is a public place. Md. lmtlyaz is the cousin brother of Md. lmran. In the meantime this motorcycle bearing no. SR 14A 8045 dashed by one tractor bearing no. JH 07A 1420 from behind and Md. lmtiyaz was thrown away and Md. lrnran died there. Md. Irma had no driving license of the aforesaid motor-cycle bearing no. BR 14A 8045. The claimant has also did not submitted the driving license, registration paper in the court. SR 14A 8045 dashed by one tractor bearing no. JH 07A 1420 from behind and Md. lmtiyaz was thrown away and Md. lrnran died there. Md. Irma had no driving license of the aforesaid motor-cycle bearing no. BR 14A 8045. The claimant has also did not submitted the driving license, registration paper in the court. This motorcycle was purchased from the O.P. NO.4, Rizwan Akhtar who has submitted the sale letter of the aforesaid motorcycle bearing no. BR 14A 8045. The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 has submitted the valid Insurance Policy of the Tractor. Ext as mark I along-with the Registration paper of the aforesaid tractor and driving licence of the driver of the tractor. As per the Insurance Policy the aforesaid "Tractor had the valid Insurance from the Insurance Company at the time of accident. 6. However, the Tribunal took the view that since the deceased was not having license to drive the motorcycle. the claim application filed by the claimants-appellants cannot be allowed. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. In our view, the Tribunal has not applied the law correctly on the facts of the instant case. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the deceased was not having a valid driving license, that does not mean that the tractor will come from behind being driven rashly and negligently and dash the motorcycle. It any be a case of contributory negligence but on that ground alone the claim application cannot be rejected uprightly. The Impugned Judgment and award therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 8. For the aforesaid reason, this appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to pass fresh judgment and award after applying the correct proposition of law as discussed hereinabove. Since the claim case is of the year, 2002, it would be just and proper for the Tribunal to take up the same and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.