Re: Sri Sanjoy Bose & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 September, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 6]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Re: Sri Sanjoy Bose & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 18 September, 2013

Bench: Indira Banerjee

                                              1



5


           F.M.A. 1685 OF 2003

    Re: Sri Sanjoy Bose & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Anr.

    Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee,
    Ms. Kakali Dutta.
              ..for the appellants.
    Ms. Asha Gourisaria Gutgutia.
              .. for the respondent No.1.

This appeal is against a judgment and order/award of the Motor Accident Claims Case Tribunal, First Court, Siliguri in MAC Case No. 252 of 2000, the operative part whereof is set out hereinbelow;

" Hence, it is, ordered that the MAC case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.Ps. but without costs.

The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.4,48.125/- in this case.

The O.P. no.3the Insurance Co. is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6000/-only to the petnr. And the O.Ps. owners are directed to pay the rest amount to the petnr. by A/c payee cheque through this tribunal within one month from this date, failing which the petnr is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. till realization."

It appears that the Union of India filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying for payment of compensation of Rs.4,48,125/- on account of damage caused to Military Truck No.92-D 9372H, as a result of an accident caused by the vehicle No. WG-B 5846 owned by the appellant.

Before the learned Tribunal, the claimant claimed that while the military vehicle was proceeding towards 702 Engineering Plant Unit the truck No. WG-B 5846 owned by the appellant collided with the vehicle causing damage to it. It was alleged that the truck of the appellant was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants attacked the judgment and award/order mainly on two grounds. First, he contended that the condition precedent for an award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the offending vehicle.

Mr. Chatterjee's second point was that compensation was awarded on the basis of in-house assessment made by the claimant and not any independent assessor and in any case the loss statement was vague and devoid of material particulars.

In course of trial the P.W.2 being the driver of the vehicle of the appellant deposed that his vehicle was hit by the appellant's truck, which was coming from the opposite direction even though he had stopped his vehicle on the left side of the Kachha road.

The P.W 3 Sri Subedar Khagan Singh who had prepared the loss statement report was also examined. It appears that the PW 3 deposed as follows;

" On 2-10-99 I was posted at 55 Plant Workshop, Bagdogra. On that day I examined the vehicle being No.92D-93/7288. After inspection of the same, I prepared a report. This is the report 3 signed by me. In my report the vehicle was declared as scrap.

This is my report.         It is marked as Ext.5.
        The vehicle got its damage in the front side.                        The side
vehicle was not examined by any other private authority.                           Not a
fact that my report is false.


        Shaktiman truck was 92 model.               On perusal of the report, I

can give the manufacturing year of the vehicle. The vehicle was taken in my service in the year 1992. The report does not disclose the year of manufacturing of the vehicle. The report does not disclose with whom the accident was occurred and how the accident was occurred. Not a fact that Ext.4, was prepared as per my whims. Ext.5 does not also disclose the manufacturing year of the vehicle. It does not also disclose that how and with whom the accident was occurred.

        The    pen-through       question    on    the   report    mkd.   Ext.5    bears
initial.       I cannot say whose initial is it.

Not a fact that Ext.5 is a false and fabricated document."

It is absolutely clear that the learned Tribunal has in effect arrived at the finding that the offending vehicle was being driven in a negligent manner. The learned Tribunal has, thus, recorded that even though the lorry stopped on the left side of the kachha road it has been hit by the offending truck from the opposite side.

In our view, the omission to specifically use the expression 'the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner' would make little difference. It is not for the appellate Court to sit in appeal over the style in which the learned Tribunal has written its judgment.

However, so far as the compensation amount is concerned we find that PW 3 has not even explained the mode and manner of calculation of loss. The statement prepared by him has not at all been explained. Moreover, there is also substance in Mr. Chatterjee's submission that the statement in itself is an in- house statement prepared by the officers of the appellant.

In the absence of any evidence explaining the computation of Rs.4,48,125/- the judgment and order/award in so far as the same has awarded compensation of Rs.4,48,125/- cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The claim case is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Having regard to the fact that the accident took place in the year 1999 and the claim case was filed way back in 2000, we request the learned Tribunal to dispose of the claim case expeditiously and in any case within three months from the date of communication of this order after giving all concerned parties reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Let the Lower Court Records be sent down to the learned Court below forthwith.

Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to learned advocates appearing for the parties on compliance of requisite formalities.

( INDIRA BANERJEE,J.) (ANINDITA ROY SARASWATI,J.) 5

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)