RAJENDRA NATH SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred challenging the award dated 12. 11. 1991 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Midnapore in M. A. C. Case No. 334 of 1989.

( 2 ) IN short the background may be stated that one Narayan Chandra Roy died out of an accident near Madpur Ghat on Bombay National Highway at about 9. 55 a. m. in the district of Midnapore because of the offending vehicle (bus) WGB 3952 which was proceeding towards Kharagpur from Debra and the same was being driven very rashly and negligently and its front wheel burst out with terrific sound and capsized resulting in the death of the deceased victim on the spot. Amount of compensation was claimed as per the memorandum/petition to the extent of Rs. 3,50,000. Learned Tribunal assessed the same to the extent of Rs. 1,36,000 less paid Rs. 15,000 awarded to the petitioners under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (the prior Act ).

( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the new Act came into force on 1. 7. 1989. The appellant has challenged the quantum awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that as per the insurance agreement their liability was limited to the extent of Rs. 15,000 in case of a passenger and Rs. 50,000 if not a passenger, the above being the maximum liability.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has urged that the learned Tribunal below has ignored the contents of the F. I. R. , Exh. 3. The document, i. e. , the F. I. R. had been ignored simply because the de facto complainant was not examined and did not prove the F. I. R. Learned Counsel has urged that in this instant case the said document was filed on behalf of the complainants themselves and that the document being the first in point of time which speaks in itself need not be proved by the maker of it like that of a criminal case. The said document goes to show that the said bus due to burst of one tyre capsized after taking a somersault causing some spot deaths and causing injuries to a large number of passengers.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel goes on urging that the learned Tribunal had adjudged the deceased being as a by-stander pedestrian and not a passenger of the said bus which cannot be supported by way of evidence within the four corners of the record.

( 6 ) WE have been taken through the information sought in the petition: was the person of whom compensation is claimed travelling in the vehicle, if so, give the name of the place of starting of journey and destination. As against the same it has been stated: it is reported that the victim was coming from Debra to Midnapore and as a result of the accident he died on spot. Then again as against item No. 23 of the questionnaire: is any other information that may be necessary in disposal of the claim? as against that it has been stated: that on 15. 6. 1989 at about 9. 55 a. m. the victim coming from Debra towards Midnapore the offending vehicle WGB 3952 (bus) was proceeding towards Kharagpur from Debra side. The offending bus was driven by driver of the said bus very rashly and negligently and the front wheel burst out with terrific sound and the said bus met an accident near Madpur Ghat on Bombay National Highway at about 9. 55 a. m. As a result the victim died on the spot.

( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel has also drawn our attention to the evidence of P. W. 1, i. e. , the widow of the deceased who has stated that her husband had been to his friend's house at Madpur and to return from Madpur to Midnapore he was standing near Madpur Ghat to avail of a bus. The same statement has also been made by P. W. 2 Biswanath Chakraborty who is stated to have been returning from Laoda on 15. 6. 1989 and at Madpur they got down from the said bus, so that he could meet some relative there. He asked Narayan Chandra Roy to wait near the bus stoppage and thereafter he found that the offending vehicle coming at a high speed and knocked down some persons standing there and ran over certain persons including Narayan Chandra Roy and then capsized.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document