The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to provide reliable evidence proving the involvement of the vehicle in a motor accident claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. This instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants feeling aggrieved with the judgment and award dated 08.07.2014 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Burdwan in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 23/11 thereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim application on contest against O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company and ex parte against O.P. No. 1/owner of the offending vehicle.

2. Brief facts are relevant for the purpose of disposal of the instant case as follows:

On 31.05.2011 at about 12 hours, when the deceased was returning home at his residence through NH2, near Pursa Majherpul the offending vehicle which was coming with high speed and rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries including head injury. He was immediately removed to Pursa Primary Health Care and from there to B.M.C.H. and subsequently in Seviour Clinic at Kolkata, where he expired on 01.06.2011. Over the said accident a Golsi P.S. Case No. 85/11 dated 05.06.2011 u/s 279/304A IPC was started against the driver of the offending vehicle. Deceased, at the time of accident, was aged about 29 years and he used to earn Rs. 6,000/-per month as mason. Due to his sudden demise the appellants/claimants being wife, minor son and the parents of the deceased suffered severe financial crisis as well as mental pain and agony. Accordingly, they have filed the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-along with interest and other benefits.

Respondent No. 2/owner though appeared by filing Vakalatnama but subsequently did not contest the case. Respondent No. 1/Shriram General Co. Ltd. filed written statement denying the claim of the claimants. An application u/s 170 of the M.V. Act has been filed by Respondent No. 1 has been allowed by the Learned Tribunal. Learned Tribunal after scanning and appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary brought on record by the parties, decided the case in negative and finally dismissed the claim application on the ground that the claimants/appellants failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle-was responsible for such accident rather to say that involvement of the vehicle No. WB-41-7601 in the alleged accident is not proved though it the claim of the appellants/claimants that the offending vehicle was very much involved and due to rash and negligent manner of driving of the driver of the offending vehicle endangering human life and safely, accident occurred and by oral and documentary evidence brought by the claimants on record proved the same. Hence, appellants constrain to file this memo of appeal praying for awarding compensation as prayed for.

3. Mr. Chattopadhyay, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants strenuously submitted that the Learned Tribunal erred in holding that the offending vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. Learned Tribunal further ignored the oral evidence of P.W. 2 and documentary evidence like FIR, Charge Sheet and P.M. Report. Eye witness (P.W.-2) and OPW I specifically narrated the number of vehicle and its involvement on the date of accident. It is true that the FIR was lodged by the P.W. 1, who subsequently, deposed before the Learned Tribunal that he heard the incident from the charge sheeted witnesses namely Sk. Kamaluddin, Sk. Taher Ali and Sk. Idrish though from the FIR it is appearing he was present at the spot and saw the accident but subsequently he stated the facts sincerely because actually he did not see the accident and he was also not present at the spot. He has not written complaint from his own hand writing but it was written by a scribe. He does not know the actual contents of the written complaint so he rightly deposed that he heard about the accident from others before the Learned Tribunal is not cloud with suspicion. It is