The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and uncontradicted evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and corroborating documents, to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and determine the claimants' entitlement to compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This instant First Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants against the judgment of dismissal of a Motor Accident Claim Case No. 134/299/2006 dated 29.11.2007 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of one Subhas Ch. Ruidas Alias Subhas Ruidas by the Court of Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, 1st Court, Burdwan.

2. The brief facts of this case are as under:

2a. On 05.10.2005 at about 9.20 pm when the victim was returning towards his home at Tatarpur and was moving on a bi-cycle towards east from west along the northern side of kancha flank of the G.T. Road. He was suddenly dashed by one Mini Truck bearing No. WB 41B/2371 from back side, which was coming in a rash and negligent manner and endangering to human life and safety through the G.T. Road. As a result, the victim sustained grievous injuries and he was removed to Memari Hospital. However, the victim died on his way to hospital. At the time of accident, he was 28 years old and he was a carpenter-cum-hoarding and glow-sign maker. He used to earn Rs. 7,000/-per month. Appellants/claimants being the legal heirs/representatives of the victim filed the claim case for compensation due to pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses due to sudden death of sole bread earner of the family and they prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,20,000/-from the Oriental Insurance Company.

2b. The Opposite Party No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle contested the said case by filing written statement denying, inter alia, all the allegations and further contended that the driver was driving the vehicle with valid licence and the vehicle was also insured with the Opposite Party No. 2/Oriental Insurance Company Limited. It is further case of the Opposite Party No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle that the victim had contributed for such accident due to his own negligence and finally challenged the age, avocation and income as well as accident itself.

2c. Whereas, the Opposite Party No. 2/Oriental Insurance Company Limited also contested the case by filing a separate written statement thereby, inter alia, denied and disputed all the allegations made by the appellants/claimants and stated the vehicle was not involved in the said accident. The offending vehicle was later implanted with collusion and connivance of the appellants/claimants and the owner of the alleged offending vehicle and falsely filed this case for getting compensation from the Insurance Company and prayed for rejection of the same.

2d. After considering the pleadings of the parties and other materials collected during the trial, the Learned Judge finally dismissed the case on contest without order as to costs observing therein that the vehicle was not at all involved in the said accident. In addition, the learned Court did not repose confidence on the evidence of eye witness examined P.W. 3. As such, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants for its disposal and further prayed for compensation as prayed.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants/Claimants:

3. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submitted that the accident took place on 5th October, 2005 and on the same day FIR was lodged. It is true that there was no reflection in the FIR with regards to the number of the offending vehicle involved.

3a. It is further submitted that IO of the instant case has filed initially an FRT but a protest petition had been filed by the complainant before the learned Court below praying for further investigation as the FRT, filed by the IO, was mechanical and perfunctory and without proper investigated. The learned Court below allowed the said protest petition and further directed for reinvestigate of the case. During investigation, the newly appointed IO has seized the offending vehicle, examined the witnesses and finally submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle No. WB 41B