Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Milan Ghosh on 25 July, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP. No.77/2013
1. The State of Tripura,
Represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, P.O - Kunjaban.
2. Superintendent of Police(Procurement),
Government of Tripura, Department of Police,
A.D. Nagar, Agartala, West Tripura,
(Owner of Vehicle Bearing No.TR-01-E-0815).
3. The Company Commandant, 12th Bn. Tripura State Rifles,
Chakmaghat Head Quarter under Teliamura P.S.,
District - Khowai.
....... Appellants.
-: Vrs. :-
1. Smt. Milan Ghosh, wife of Late Brajwendra Ghosh,
2. Sri Sanjoy Ghosh, son of Late Brajwendra Ghosh,
3. Smt. Sagata Ghosh(minor), daughter of Late Jiban Ghosh,
represented by her Grand Mother, Respondent No.1.
All are residents of Village - Maharanipur, Chakmaghat under Teliamura Police Station, District - Khowai.
..... Claimant Respondents.
_B_E_F_O_R_E_
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. J Majumder, Advocate.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Suman Bhattacharji, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 30-6-2017.
Date of Judgment & Order : 25-7-2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER
In this appeal, the State-appellant is questioning the legality of the judgment dated 26-4-2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khowai in T.S.(MAC) No.26 of 2012 awarding a compensation of `6,94,000/- to the three claimant-respondents for the death of the deceased in a vehicular accident. MAC APP No.77/ 2013 Page 1 of 7
2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. The claimant-respondent No.1 is the mother of the late Jiban Ghosh ("the deceased"), while the claimant-respondent No.2 is his brother and the claimant-respondent No.3 is the minor daughter of the deceased. According to the respondents, on 18-9- 2010 at about 3.30 PM, while the deceased was returning from Chakmaghat to his house at Maharanipur under Teliamura PS riding in his bicycle, the vehicle bearing registration number TR-01-E-0815 belonging to 12 Bn. T.S.R. of Chakmaghat HQ knocked him down from behind causing grievous injuries to him. Subsequently, he succumbed to his injuries. The Teliamura Police Station registered TLM P.S. Case No.4 of 2011 U/s 279/304-A IPC in connection with the accident. The deceased was said to 27 years old at the time of the accident and was earning `7,500/- per month as daily labourer. The claimant-respondents thereafter filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of `11,50,000 from the appellant authorities.
3. The claim petition was resisted by the State-appellant by filing their written statement taking the stance that the vehicle was never involved in the accident and no compensation is, therefore, liable to be paid by him. It was, however, admitted by the appellant that the offending vehicle belonged to SP, Tripura Police Department. The other specific stance taken by the appellant is that at the time of the accident in question, the said vehicle was performing duties at Raishyabari post under Gandacherra Sub-Division and the question of payment of compensation to the claimants did not, therefore, arise. It further pleaded by the appellant authorities that the relevant entries were made in the LOG Book of the said vehicle, which would show that the vehicle was at Raishyabari. A plea of alibi, therefore, set up by the appellant authorities in resisting the claim petition.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration:
"1. Whether deceased Jiban Ghosh died on 18-9-2010 in a vehicular accident occurred (sic) on 18-9-2010 at about 3.30 PM on Assam- Agartala road near the house of Kanti Saha in between Battala Bazar and MAC APP No.77/2013 Page 2 of 7 and Maharanipur under Teliamura PS due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. TR-01-E-0815.
2. Whether the vehicle number TR-01-E-0815 belonged to the S.P. (Procurement), Govt. of Tripura and possessed by 12 Bn. T.S.R., Chalmaghat HQ?
3. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation? If so, what should be the amount of compensation and who shall be held liable for payment of the same?"
In the course of trial, the respondent No.2 submitted his examination-in- chief by affidavit as PW-1 and the examination-in-chief by affidavit of PW-2 and exhibited some documents to substantiate the claim petition. The Commandant, 12 Bn. TSR (TR-VIII) as OP No.3 submitted his examination-in-chief and was duly cross-examined. He also produced some documents to support the stance taken by him. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment awarding the compensation. Aggrieved by this, this appeal has been preferred by the State.
5. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. J. Majumder, the learned counsel appearing for the State-appellant, argues that the Tribunal has illegally disallowed the exhibition of the Log Book on the ground that the photocopy of the same was not submitted at the time of submission of the written statement and has in the process failed to take notice of the vital fact that the vehicle was at Raishyabari at the time of the accident thereby definitely ruling out the involvement thereof in the vehicular accident. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the State that the Tribunal improperly omitted to consider the command certificate of the driver of the vehicle which detailed him to report to Raishyabari Post, which was also corroborated by the GD Entry dated 2-9-2010, which, in turn, corroborated the Log Book for September, 2010; this betrays non-consideration of the relevant fact that the vehicle was at Raishyabari at the time of the accident. The learned State counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment suffers from serious infirmities warranting the interference of this Court. Mr. Suman Bhattacharji, the MAC APP No.77/2013 Page 3 of 7 learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, however, supports the impugned judgment and maintains that the findings of the Tribunal are based on evidence, which substantiate its conclusion. He, therefore, argues that there is no merit in this appeal, which is liable to be dismissed.
6. Having perused the impugned judgment and other materials on record and having given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, the sole question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the vehicle in question was at Raishyabari Post and not at near the house of one Kanti Saha located in between Battala and Maharanipur, Teliamura on 18-9-2010 when the accident causing the death of the deceased took place? If the answer in the affirmative, it can truly be said that the said vehicle was not responsible for the death of the deceased thereby exonerating the appellant of any liability to pay the compensation. The findings of the Tribunal in this behalf may be reproduced below:
"........... Though it is clear on that date, i.e. on 18-9-10 deceased at about 3.30 pm sustained vehicular accident while he was proceeding towards Maharanipur. And it is already established that the deceased died in the said incident. No document is proved in respect of final report of the Police investigation. So, it appeared that after investigation, police did not submit any charge sheet and as such those documents were withheld by the Claimant Petitioners. The exbt-A and exbt-B as proved by the Ops do not show anything disproving the claimant story. The alleged incident took place on 18-09-10 but exbt-A shows that it only contains LOG Book of 2-9-10 to 5-9-2010. But no entry in the log book is proved with respect to the actual date of accident, i.e. on 18-9-10 in support of the evidence of DW-1 Tapan Debnath. So the evidence of DW-1 has got no value. Nowhere in his examination-in-chief it was specifically stated that on the relevant date on 18-09-10 the vehicle No. TR-01-E-0815 did not travel through Maharanipur Battali towards Teliamura from Chakmaghat and MAC APP No.77/2013 Page 4 of 7 his exhibit documents do not suggest it. In this claim case PW-2 Hillol Malakar claim to be an eyewitness and stated that on 18-09-10 at about 3-30 PM near the house of Kanti Saha between Maharanipur Kalibari and Maharanipur Battali Bazar this incident took place and at that time he was returning from Maharanipur Battali Bazar towards his house taking the A.A. Road and claimed that Jiban Ghosh crossed him and went 50 to 60 meter from him and at that time one vehicle bearing Registration No. TR-01-E-0815 One Tone dashed (sic) Jiban (deceased) and his bi-cycle and Jiban sustained grievous injury and soon after incident he and others with the aid of Fire Service Personnel shifted Jiban to Teliamura Hospital and where Jiban was given first aid and was referred to GBP Hospital on the way Jiban expired. Except denial, nothing is shown during cross-examination to contradict his evidence and to disbelieve his evidence. So I find no ground to disbelieve the evidence of PW-2 that he had seen the involved vehicle bearing No. TR-01-E-0815 to dashed (sic) Jiban the deceased from behind while he was riding his bi-cycle. It is clear from the police record (exhibited documents) that the vehicle came in high speed and was driven negligently at the relevant time of incident. Moreover, it is abundantly clear that at the relevant time of the incident the deceased was proceeding towards Teliamura by riding a bi-cycle then the vehicle came from behind and dash (sic) his bi-cycle. So dashing of the victim now deceased from behind by the vehicle is the clear proof of the fact that it was driven in a rash and negligent manner."
7. From the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, it is obvious that there is no eye-witness to the accident. The only eye-witnesses to the accident were the deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle. The deceased is dead. Dead man tells no tale. The driver of the vehicle should have come forward and give truthful statement as the accident was a fact especially within his knowledge. But he refused to do so. Passers-by or witnesses seldom volunteer to give their evidence on MAC APP No.77/2013 Page 5 of 7 the way the accident takes place or who drives the vehicle. This difficulty has been recognized by the Apex Court time and again. In the recent case of Gurdeep Singh v. Bhim Singh and others, (2013) 11 SCC 507, the Apex Court observed:
"15. It is a matter of common knowledge that in motor road accident's claim cases, it is very difficult to get witnesses. The eyewitnesses are also not readily available. Even if available, they are not easily ready and willing to come and depose in court of law for many reasons. Thus, we have to go by the oath of the claimant only. From the materials available on record, it is established and crystal clear that the appellant had definitely met with the accident. He was also travelling in the bus, operated by M/s Kataria Tours and Travellers. It is also proved that the accident was between two buses on the intervening night of 28-9-1994 and 29-9-1994."
8. Judging the findings of the Tribunal against the backdrop of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Gurdeep Singh case (supra), I am of the view that there is no earthly reason to interfere therewith. A last-ditch effort is now made by the learned State counsel to salvage his case by producing the log-book of the vehicle. It is a well-known fact that a log-book is always kept by the driver of the vehicle of every establishment to record all events relating to the journey of the vehicle driven by him, such as the journey undertaken by him on a particular day, the purpose for which the journey was undertaken and the place and time of such journey. I have carefully gone through the log-book and found, much to my consternation, that the log-book appears to have been manipulated by the appellant authorities. Be that as it may, though the appellant claimed that on 18-9-2010, the vehicle was performing duty at Raishyabari Post under the Gandacherra Sub- Division, no entry to that effect was, curiously, made in the log book of the offending vehicle for that particular day. Moreover, the entry for 20-9-2010 was signed on 20-10-2010, while the entry for 22-9-2010 was signed only on 22-10- 2010. On the other hand the entry for 23-9-2010 was signed on a date which was MAC APP No.77/2013 Page 6 of 7 overwritten. The log-book produced by the appellant to prove its case has rather raised reasonable ground for suspicion that the appellant authorities are concealing the full facts of the case, which are especially within their knowledge. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark! Instead of helping the case of the Appellant, the log- book has destroyed the very basis of their case. In that view of the matter, the inference is inevitable and the conclusion inescapable that the offending vehicle belonging to the State-appellants was involved in the accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased. No other issue is raised by the learned State counsel to challenge the other findings of the Tribunal. Therefore, the State-appellants are liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-respondents as rightly held by the Tribunal.
9. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The State-appellants shall now deposit with this Registry a sum of `6,94,000/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment for payment to the claimant-respondents in accordance with the judgment of the Tribunal. Any amount already deposited or paid to the claimant- respondents shall stand adjusted accordingly. Transmit the L.C. record forthwith. The log book in original produced by the learned counsel for the State is returned herewith.
CHIEF JUSTICE Sukhendu MAC APP No.77/2013 Page 7 of 7