PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the judgment and award dated 12. 4. 2001, passed in M. A. C. Case No. 125 of 2000, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 4th Court of Additional District Judge at alipore, South 24 Parganas.

( 2 ) THE above claim case arose out of an application under section 163-A of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the aforesaid claim case are that on 10. 10. 1998, when the victim was sitting on the pillion and her husband riding a motor cycle, the offending vehicle which was coming from the opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner knocked them down, as a result, both the victim and her husband were seriously injured and ultimately the victim succumbed to her injuries. The above claim petition was filed by the husband and three children of the couple.

( 4 ) THE Claims Tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs 50,000 in favour of the claimants-appellants which has been challenged in this appeal. On the face of the said award, we are of the view that the claims Tribunal has absolutely misdirected itself in making the said award. On its own finding, that the accident as alleged in the claim petition has not been proved by the claimants-appellants, it ought not to have passed an award for a sum of Rs. 50,000 by invoking the provisions of section 140 of the said Act. This finding again that the accident did not at all occur on the face of the materials on record is absolutely perverse. Soon after the accident an F. I. R. was lodged with the concerned police station. The said F. I. R. has been produced and is a part of record of the proceeding. A relative of the victim also reported to the concerned police station about the said accident. These documents have been proved in evidence by the claimants-appellants which have been marked as Exhs. 9 (a) and 9 (b ). On the face of the said documents, the finding that the accident as alleged by the claimants-appellants has not been proved by them, cannot be sustained. We, therefore, set aside the said finding and hold from the evidence of the parties and the material on record that the alleged accident has been proved by the claimants-appellants in the aforesaid proceeding.

( 5 ) IT transpires from the material on record that the husband of the victim was not the owner of the motor cycle which he was riding with his wife sitting on the pillion. In course of hearing of this appeal, a question has been raised as to whether the husband of the victim since he was and/or is not the owner of the motor cycle, should be made liable for contributory negligence on his part in the cause of the said accident so as to apportion the amount of compensation between the insurer of the offending vehicle and the husband of the victim.

( 6 ) MR. Krishanu Banik, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants-appellants has seriously contended that in a proceeding under section 163-A the question of contributory negligence on the part of the victim and/or the claimants is not a relevant matter or factor for consideration for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation payable to the claimants-appellants because of the said accident.

( 7 ) IN this regard reference may be made to the provisions of section 163-A (2) of the said Act which reads as under:"in any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. "

( 8 ) UPON plain reading of the said provision it is clear that in any claim for compensation under sub-section (1) of section 163-A of the said Act, it is not necessary to prove any wrongful act or neglect or default on the part of the offending vehicle. The consideration of the question of contributory neglige

Click Here to Read the rest of this document