Dismissed

Mithu Rani Das and Ors. v. Badal Ch. Saha and Ors.

Tripura HC7 Aug 2017MAC App./7/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's refusal to pay compensation. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the death could not be connected to the accident due to procedural irregularities in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; parties to bear respective costs; LCR to be transmitted immediately.

Mithu Rani Das and Ors. Vs Badal Ch. Saha and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

MAC APP. NO.07/2016

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI

¶4

Present: For the appellants : Mr. P. Rathor, Advocate, Mr. S.H. Ikbal, Advocate, Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A. Gan Choudhury, Advocate. 07.08.2017.

¶5

Heard Mr. P. Rathor, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. A. Gan Choudhury, the learned counsel for the insurer.

¶6

Aggrieved by the refusal of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (MAC) No.108 of 2007 in its judgment dated 03.06.2015 to pay compensation to the appellants, this appeal has been preferred by them.

¶7

Before proceeding further, the relevant findings of the Tribunal may be reproduced hereunder:-

¶8

“………..The O.P. No.1, however, in his written objection admitted that fact in para No.8 that after the accident the victim was brought to hospital for treatment and subsequently he succumbed to his injuries on 03.01.2007. But at the same time he also stated that Bishramganj PS already registered a case u/s 279/338/304 A of IPC by registering BRG PS case No.01/2007. Exbt.1 series the FIR shows that it was dated 04.01.2007 and police also registered the case on that very date. But up to that date in the FIR also there was no mention that by the time the injured died and the claimant petitioner No.1 Mithu Rani Das was the informant of this case though as per claim petition the injured died on 03.01.2007. In the FIR she did not

¶9

MAC APP. NO.07/2016

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

disclose that fact on 04.01.2007. If the deceased died as a result of the said incident of accident while lodging the FIR the informant ought to have mentioned that fact because the FIR was lodged subsequent to the death of the deceased without mentioning the fact that the injured by the time expired. In that circumstances it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that the deceased died as a result of the alleged incident of the accident.

¶12

So, I conclude with the findings that in this case the claimant petitioner is able to prove that her husband Nirmal Das sustained vehicular accident on 21.12.2006 at about 1500 hours at Chesrimai on Agartala-Udaipur main road under Bishramganj PS while he was proceeding towards Agartala from Melaghar by boarding the bus vehicle bearing No.TRS 0568 due to collusion of the said bus with another truck vehicle bearing No.TR 01 B 1861 i.e. the offending truck due to rash and negligent driving of the said truck by its driver. But the death of the injured Nirmal Das is a result of the said incident of accident has not been proved.”

¶13

In my opinion, the findings of the Tribunal are supported by evidence on record. It may be pointed out that though the vehicular accident allegedly took place on 21.12.2006 at Chesrimai along Agartala-Udaipur road under Bishramganj P.S. wherein not only the deceased but some other passengers were alleged to have sustained injuries, not even a G.D. entry in connection with the accident was made till the complaint was lodged by the claimant, wife of the deceased, on 04.01.2007. Not a single passenger was examined to prove the case of the appellants. Strangely enough, the police sent a message to the Officer-in-Charge of Beniapukur Police Station, Kolkata about the injuries allegedly sustained by the deceased only on 04.01.2007; the deceased died on 03.01.2007. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal is not wide of the mark in holding that the death of

¶14

MAC APP. NO.07/2016

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

the deceased was not or could not have been connected with the alleged accident. This, on careful reading of the materials on record, I am satisfied that the findings of the Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity warranting the interference of this Court.

¶17

For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs. Transmit the LCR forthwith.

¶18

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶19

Pulak

¶20

MAC APP. NO.07/2016

¶21

Page 3 of 3

Mithu Rani Das and Ors. v. Badal Ch. Saha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithu Rani Das and Ors. v. Badal Ch. Saha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khudiram Das Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mani Chandra Sinha and Ors. Vs Santanu Kumar and Ors.

Sanjoy Biswas and Ors. Vs Santanu Kumar and Ors.

Basana Sarkar on Behalf of Accd. Anil Sarkar Vs State of Tripura

Aruna Ghosh and Ors. Vs Renu Bala Ghosh and Ors.

Ashoke Nath @ Suman Vs State of Tripura