JUDGMENT :

Bibhas Ranjan De, J.

1. On 23.03.2011 at about 4.30 p.m. one Budho Ruidas was proceeding through NH2 on foot after finishing his work as grease mistri from Adarsha Hotel. One TATA 407 bearing WB- 41D/7859 coming with high speed dashed said Budho Ruidas who succumbed to his injury on the spot. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.

2. The legal heirs of Budho Ruidas filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with a prayer for claim of Rs. 6,00,000/-. It is stated in the application that at the time of accident Budho Ruidas was a man of 42 years having income of Rs. 200/- per day as manual work of grease.

3. Owner of the vehicle did not contest the application. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited (OP3) contested the application by filing a written objection denying all averments of the claim petition contending, inter alia, that alleged manner of accident has not been stated in the First Information Report which was lodged after 27 days of the accident.

4. To prove the case claimants examined 3 (three) witnesses namely Kalpana Ruidas, wife of deceased as PW1, Swapan Ruidas as PW2 & Md. Mahasin Saiyad as PW3.

5. One of the owners examined himself as OPW1 and Legal Officer of the Insurance Company was examined as OPW2.

6. PW1, wife of the deceased, corroborated entire averments of the claim petition. In her cross-examination she has stated that owners of the offending vehicle were her co-villagers. She never asked any compensation from them. She even did not tell them about the accident caused by their vehicle. She informed Panchayat regarding accident by the involvement of the offending vehicle. She denied the suggestion that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident.

7. PW2, Swapan Ruidas, identified himself as hotel boy of Master Hotel and on the alleged day Budho Ruidas was working as grease mistri at Adarsha Hotel by the side of NH2. While he was going on foot by the side of the road that TATA 407 bearing no. WB-41D /7859 dashed Budho Ruidas who succumbed to his injuries on the spot and he saw the accident. He lodged FIR at Galsi PS. In cross-examination he stated that owner of the vehicles were his co-villagers but he did not informed them about the accident caused by their vehicle.

After the accident the vehicle fled away.

8. PW3, Md. Mahasin Saiyad, has also claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the accident alleged to have been taken place on 23.03.2011 at 4.30 p.m. near Adarsha Hotel by the side of NH2. In cross-examination he has stated though he did not know the owners of the vehicle but he saw the vehicle for the first time on the date of accident. He did not take note of number of vehicle at any point of time he also did not inform the number of the vehicle to the police.

9. In cross examination PW3 has testified as follows:-

“The offending vehicle did not run away from the spot even after the accident. I did not notice driver of the offending vehicle. There was no space to cross the road in between the driver at the place of occurrence and I reached at the P.O. by jumping over the driver.”

10. OPW1, Abdur Rahaman claimed himself to be the owner of the offending vehicle which caused the accident alleged in this case. He stated accident took place on 19.04.2011. The driver of the vehicle fled away with his vehicle after the accident. He informed the Galsi PS about the accident and fleeing away of the driver along with vehicle, after 2/3 days of the accident and police registered a case. His vehicle was seized after 2 (two) days of the accident. He did not inform the Insurance Company in writing about the accident though he sustained damage of headlight, window screen and backside Dala. He denied all suggestions thrown to him in cross-examination on behalf of Insurance Company. In course of cross-examination on behalf of the claimants date of accident remained unchallenged.

11. In course of evidence on behalf of the claimants certified copy of FIR, seizur