Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 266 (TRI)

Aratibala Paul v. Gopal Chandra Saha

2014-07-09

DEEPAK GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 15.12.2006 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) 162 of 1995 whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed only on the ground that the death of the deceased did not take place due to motor vehicle accident. 2. The prosecution story briefly stated is that the deceased son of the claimants was travelling in vehicle No. TR-01-1218. This vehicle was moving from Taidu Bazar to Teliamura near Laxmidhan. Some extremists fired on the vehicle and as a result of which the deceased suffered gunshot injuries and expired in hospital. Date of expiry is 06.12.1993. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the case is not covered by the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, without deciding any other issue dismissed the appeal. 3. Sri Datta, learned counsel for the appellants has drawn my attention to the Division Bench Judgment of the Agartala Bench of the Gauhati High Court reported in 2005(3) GLT 407, wherein in an accident of similar nature, it was held that even in such a case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the matter. In fact, a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Basu Mati Debbarma and ors. Vs. Smt. Anita Debbarma and ors. (MAC APP. No. 26 of 2001) etc. has also held the same. Therefore the Tribunal wrongly held that he had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. 4. In view of the aforesaid fact, I had first thought that the matter can be disposed of at the appellate stage on all issues. However, on going through the entire record, I find that one of the important issues involved is whether vehicle involved in the accident was a bus or a truck. According to the Insurance Company, vehicle was insured as a truck whereas in the claim petition and in the Judgment it is stated that the vehicle was a bus. This fact will have material bearing on the decision of the case. Therefore, I feel the best course would be to remand the matter to the trial Court for deciding all other issues including the issue of negligence. 5. This fact will have material bearing on the decision of the case. Therefore, I feel the best course would be to remand the matter to the trial Court for deciding all other issues including the issue of negligence. 5. The petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and since the accident took place on 06.12.1993 prior to the introduction of Section 163A, this claim petition cannot even be treated to be a claim petition under 163A. The only evidence is that of mother. She was not at the spot and therefore, obviously, her statement cannot be relied upon to decide the issue of negligence. Though, it may be true, that even a case of extremist firing at a motor vehicle is covered by the Motor Vehicles Act, in a petition under Section 166, the claimant will have to prove negligence. 6. Therefore, the award of the learned Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned for deciding the matter afresh. Since the matter has been remanded, the Tribunal shall after remand issue notice to the claimants, the owner and the Insurance Company. They shall be permitted to lead evidence on all the issues and thereafter, the Tribunal shall decide whether there is any negligence on the part of driver and if negligence is found then he shall assess the compensation. 7. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.