IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that high-speed driving constitutes negligence under the M.V. Act, and compensation must be calculated based on notional income and appropriate multipliers.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Claimants against the Judgment and/or Order dated March 11, 2002 passed by Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional Court, Burdwan, in M.A.C. Case No. 78 of 2001/350 of 2001 whereby the Learned Judge dismissed the application, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.

2. FACTS :-

“It is case of the claimants that Sk. Shepon @ Jafar is the son of the claimants. On 4/8/2001 at about 12.30 hours when he was playing by the side of Suri Road near Pirtola of village Kayarapur, at that time vehicle No. BR.17G/1572 was proceeding with high speed from Guskara to Burdwan and the driver lost his control and dashed the deceased Jafar Ali @ Shepon and due to such accident he sustained grievous injuries on his person and died on the spot. The death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle.

One Sk. Moharam lodged F.I.R at Guskara Beat House which was forwarded to Aushgram P.S., post-mortem was held.

The claimants have claimed Rs. 5,00,000/- only as compensation.”

3. Opposite Party/National Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the case by filing written statement denying all the material allegations made in the application. The specific case of the contesting O.P. is that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle. The story of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is also a myth and the same has been alleged for the purpose of the case. The manner of accident as alleged in the application is totally false. It was the victim who was responsible for the alleged accident and that too the reckless act of the victim was the sole cause of the alleged accident. The vehicle was being driven in a moderate speed observing the traffic rules. The alleged accident took place solely for the negligence and fault of the victim himself and there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle in question. It is averred in the written statement that the victim had no occupation nor had did he have income of Rs. 2,500/- per month. The petitioners have made such false statement for getting higher compensation. The contesting O.P. prayed for dismissal of the claim application with cost to O.P.

4. The Claimants have examined two witnesses and proved relevant documents, which were marked as Exhibits.

5. Considering the materials on record, the tribunal held as follows:-

“M.A.C. Case No. 78 of 2001

M.A.C. Case No. 350 of 2001

Dated: March 11, 2002

On consideration of the evidence on record I hold that the claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and because of such reason only deceased Sk. Shepon @ Jafar met with an accident. The claimants have also failed to prove the age and income of the deceased. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to have any relief u/s 166 of the M.V. Act. Claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the vehicle No. 17G/1572 was responsible for the alleged accident. Issue nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are decided accordingly.

Hence,

Ordered

that the M.V. Case under Section 166 of the M.V. Act be and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

Judge,

M.A.C. Tribunals,

1St. Addl. Court, Burdwan.”

6. From the materials and evidence on record, it appears that :-

I. The tribunal held that:-

a) Though the eyewitness (P.W.-2) has clearly stated that the offending vehicle was proceeding with High Speed, it does not mean rash and negligent driving.

b) Aushgram P.S. Case under Section 279/304A of IPC was registered in this case.

Section 279 of IPC, lays down:-

“279. Rash driving or riding on a public way.—Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one th