Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 25 (TRI)

Chairman, Holy Cross School v. Digbijoy Debnath

2021-02-26

AKIL KURESHI

body2021
JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, J. - This appeal is filed by the original opponent of motor accident claim petition TS(MAC)382/2010 filed by the respondents herein to challenge a judgment dated 14th December, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. 2. Brief facts are as under : The opponents-original claimants are dependants of Krishnalal Debnath who was fatally injured in a hit and run accident on 22nd March, 2010 on Agartala-Udaipur road in the Agartala town. According to the claimants, the vehicle involved in the accident was a Tata Sumo Delux Jeep Van bearing registration No.TR01-0556. Further, according to the claimants, the appellant Holy Cross School was a registered owner of the vehicle. According to them, there were two eye-witnesses who had seen the accident, one of them had noted down the registration number of the vehicle and reported to them upon which they had filed the claim petition seeking compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 3. Case of the appellant is that it never owned the Tata Sumo of the registration description given by the claimants. The school is falsely implicated since the claimants could not locate the vehicle which was actually involved in the accident. The appellant would point out that the police had carried out the investigation into the said incident and upon completion of the investigation filed a charge sheet in which it was revealed that the vehicle involved was a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TR01-T-0556, which also the appellant never owned or possessed. 4. Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants examined Digbijoy Debnath Claimant No.1 as PW.1, Sankar Debnath PW.2 and Prantosh Debnath PW.3 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses. The appellant examined the Administrator of the school as DW.1. 5. During the pendency of the claim petition, the appellant had filed a civil suit(TS.21/2013) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) for cancellation of a screen report which apparently showed the appellant as the registered owner of Tata Sumo TR01-0556. An offshoot of the said suit reached the High Court in CRP No.72/2014 which was decided by a judgment dated 17th June, 2015 in which certain observations have been made and which would be relevant for our purpose. An offshoot of the said suit reached the High Court in CRP No.72/2014 which was decided by a judgment dated 17th June, 2015 in which certain observations have been made and which would be relevant for our purpose. At this stage, we may only record that the learned Judge after examining various documents and materials, came to the conclusion that such suit was not necessary and it would be open for the appellant to oppose the claim made by the claimants on appropriate grounds showing that Holy Cross School is not the owner of the said vehicle. 6. The Claims Tribunal disposed of the claim petition by the impugned judgment awarding a compensation of Rs.4, 66, 036/- to be paid by the Holy Cross School. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the appellant was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. For arriving at such a conclusion the learned Judge referred to the evidence produced by the claimants as also the material collected by the Police during the course of investigation. A reference is also made to the observations made by this Court while disposing of the revision petition of the Holy Cross School by the above noted judgment dated 17th June, 2015. 7. Appearing for Holy Cross School, learned counsel Mr. S Lodh submitted that the school has been falsely roped in. It never owned or possessed the Tata Sumo of the description given by the claimants, nor the description given by the police in the charge sheet which according to the police, was involved in the accident. The claimants are trying to involve the Holy Cross School because the vehicle which was actually involved in the accident was neither insured nor owned by a person who could pay the compensation. There was no evidence produced by the claimants to show that the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TR01-0556 was involved in the accident or that the appellant was the owner thereof. He drew my attention to the observations made in the judgment of this Court dated 17th June, 2015 to contend that no vehicle of this description even existed. The learned Judge has committed a serious error in relying on a mere screenshot supposedly of the website of the Regional Transport Office without such document being produced and proved on record. 8. The learned Judge has committed a serious error in relying on a mere screenshot supposedly of the website of the Regional Transport Office without such document being produced and proved on record. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opponents-original claimants opposed the appeal contending that the Tribunal has correctly relied on the eyewitness accounts. The police investigation cannot disturb such evidence. The Holy Cross School has produced no evidence though opportunity was granted by this Court in the said judgment dated 17th June, 2015. Mere non-exhibiting the document by the Claims Tribunal cannot be a ground for rejecting a claim in a beneficial legislation such as Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. Both sides as also the Claims Tribunal have referred to several observations made by this Court in the said judgment dated 17th June, 2015. I may, therefore, begin the discussion with reference to the said judgment. As the centre of the controversy was a screenshot purportedly showing Holy Cross School as the owner of vehicle bearing registration No.TR01-0556 which was stated to be a Tata Sumo Delux, manufacturing year being 1993 and it was registered as a petrol vehicle. Holy Cross School had approached the Tata Motors Limited asking for the details of the said vehicle to which the Tata Motors had written that no vehicle bearing the chassis number has given any RTO of model Tata Sumo Delux of the year 1993 was manufactured. It also conveyed that the screenshot showed the vehicle to be a patrol driven vehicle whereas Tata Sumo vehicles are always diesel driven vehicles. The number of seats sown in the screen report was 3 whereas Tata Sumo having seating capacity of 6 to 10 but not 3 for sure. Last but not least, the first manufacture of Tata Sumo begun in the year 1994 and therefore, there could not have been any Tata Sumo vehicle manufactured in the year 1993. 10. Since the police had filed a charge sheet indicating the number of the vehicle involved in the accident as TR01-T-0556, the learned Judge had requested the Government Advocate to produce the record relating to said vehicle from the RTO and upon perusal of which it was recorded that the owner of vehicle was shown to be one Ranjit Debbarma and it was a Tata Sumo Jeep vehicle. The learned Judge had also called upon Holy Cross School to produce all its accounts pertaining to the years 1992-1993 to 1994-1995 and made an observation that there is no entry of purchasing any such vehicle during the relevant time. The learned Judge also made an observation that there was sufficient material to show from the certificate of Tata Motors Limited that no Sumo vehicle was manufactured prior to 1994 and therefore, the question of Sumo vehicle purchased in the year 1993 and being registered in 1993 would not arise, if that is the position. Without going to the finality of such a question the learned Judge observed that the school had placed sufficient material to cast doubt on the screen report issued by the State authority because 'the record of the State is totally deficient and is not supported by the record of the company'. Having held that, the learned Judge was of the opinion that it was not necessary for the Holy Cross School to file a separate suit contesting the correctness of the screenshot, instead can always oppose the claim on all grounds before the Claims Tribunal. In the process, liberty was also granted to the claimants whether to change the registration number of the vehicle involved to TR01-T-0556. 11. The evidence on record needs to be appreciated in background of such observations. Though these observations cannot be seen as binding to the parties or to the Tribunal, nevertheless would require me to assess the evidence minutely. PW.1 Digbijoy Debnath was not an eyewitness. His evidence is relevant only to the limited extent of recording that from the date of filing of the claim petition till its disposal, at no stage, the claimants changed their position of the vehicle involved being of registration No.TR01-0556 and that it was a Tata Sumo Delux Jeep. PW.2 Sankar Debnath claimed that he was present when the accident took place. He was a milk seller. He saw Tata Sumo TR01-0556 knocking down a pedestrian. He had helped shift the injured to a nearby hospital and informed the family members. In the cross-examination, he was questioned on involvement of Tata Sumo vehicle of the given description. Similar was the version of PW.3 Prantosh Debnath and consequently, similar was the cross-examination of this witness also. 12. He saw Tata Sumo TR01-0556 knocking down a pedestrian. He had helped shift the injured to a nearby hospital and informed the family members. In the cross-examination, he was questioned on involvement of Tata Sumo vehicle of the given description. Similar was the version of PW.3 Prantosh Debnath and consequently, similar was the cross-examination of this witness also. 12. DW.1 the Administrator of the Holy Cross School in his deposition had denied that the school ever owned the said vehicle. On behalf of the school, an Advocate had applied to the RTO under RTI for supplying necessary documents of the registration of the vehicle No.TR01- 0556. The Joint Transport Commissioner informed the applicant that they are unable to provide the requested documents which are either being misplaced or damaged while shifting the office or due to fire which occurred in the office premises. He further pointed out that the police had registered a complaint for accidental death in which the number of vehicle involved was given TR01-0556. He also referred to the correspondence with Tata Motors which contradicted every possible detail given in the screenshot regarding the vehicle in question. 13. After the High Court gave its judgment on 17th June 2015, DW.1 gave further evidence in which he contended that the Holy Cross School is neither the owner of vehicle TR01-0556 nor of TR01-T-0556. He again referred to the certificate issued by the Tata Motors on 28th September, 2014 regarding make, manufacture date etc. of vehicle in question. In the cross-examination, he agreed that in the Transport department the vehicle i.e. TR01-0556 is shown in the name of Holy Cross Society but claimed that the same was wrongly done. 14. It may also be recorded that at one stage the police had filed a charge sheet concluding that the vehicle involved in the accident was Tata Sumo TR01-0556. On an objection, the Court asked the police to carry out further inquiry upon which a fresh charge sheet was filed in which it was stated that the involvement of the vehicle was of TR01-T-0556 and that it was owned by one Kalachan Debbarma who had sold it to some other person later on and eventually, the vehicle was purchased by a scrap dealer and the whereabouts of the vehicle or the ownership were not known. 15. 15. On the basis of such evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the vehicle involved was TR01-0556 and was owned by the Holy Cross School. This was on the bases that according to the Tribunal, the registration of the vehicle still remained in the name of the Holy Cross School and the school had not produced any evidence to rebut this factor for the Tribunal to disbelieve such registration certificate. The charge sheet contents were discarded on the basis of a judgment of this Court in case of Rampati Chakma v. Sunil Kumar Ram and Ors. reported in (2016) 2 TLR 975. 16. From the materials on record it can be seen that there was shaky evidence of involvement of a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TR01-0556. According to the police, real culprit was Tata Sumo TR01- T-0556. The witness of the appellant had referred to the certificate issued by the Tata Motors suggesting that such vehicles were never manufactured prior to 1994, that Tata Sumos are never made in petrol version and lastly, contrary to the registration details it is not the 3 seater vehicle but carries least 6 to 10 seats. It is true that certificate was not produced and proved by examining the author of the certificate. However, one can take judicial notice of the fact that Tata Sumo was a large size vehicle and never came in a model of only 3 seat capacity. Further, when the appellant approached the RTO for providing details of the registration of the vehicle, the authority cited inability to provide the same due to passage of time and possible destruction of the records. 17. As against this, the claimants have produced a bare copy of the screenshot supposedly of the RTO authorities showing the detail of the vehicle and that it was owned by the appellant. It would be highly unsafe to rely on a copy of a screenshot without any further inquiries. Firstly, no RTO officer was examined. Secondly, the contents seem very fishy for the reasons noted above. Thirdly, this Court also in a judgment dated 17th June, 2015 had made strong prima facie observations about the genuineness of the screenshot and lastly, such document was neither proved nor exhibited. It is not a mere oversight on part of the Tribunal to not exhibit a document which was otherwise proved. Thirdly, this Court also in a judgment dated 17th June, 2015 had made strong prima facie observations about the genuineness of the screenshot and lastly, such document was neither proved nor exhibited. It is not a mere oversight on part of the Tribunal to not exhibit a document which was otherwise proved. The name of Holy Cross School as an owner in some so-called screenshot, therefore, cannot be a conclusive proof of its ownership. 18. The claimants remained steadfast in their belief of the involvement of the vehicle and never wanted to shift it to involvement of Tata Sumo TR01-T-0556 which according to the police investigation was the vehicle actually involved in the accident. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of the Claims Tribunal is reversed. Appeal disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Records and proceedings be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.