The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the claimant to provide sufficient evidence to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident in a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This appeal under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment dated 7.1.98 passed by the learned Member, MACT, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. TS (MAC) of 1993 rejecting the claim of the claimant/Appellant for awarding compensation on account of death of her husband due to the motor accident caused by the vehicle belonging to the Respondents.

2. We have heard Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned Sr. CGSC for the Respondents.

3. As against the case of the claimant/Appellant that on the fateful day i.e. 6.4.93, the accident involving the vehicle (Jeep) bearing registration No. TRA 2131 belonging to the Respondents occurred at Siddhi Ashram, Agartala-Bishalgarh road, it is the complete denial on the part of the Respondents that the said vehicle belonging to them was at all involved in the said accident. According to the Appellant, the said vehicle belonging to the Respondents knocked down her husband due to rash and negligent driving. Immediately after the accident, her husband was taken to GB Hospital, Agartala where he was admitted and treated. Unfortunately, he died on 14.4.93 succumbing to the injuries sustained by him due to the said accident. A police case vide Amtali P.S. Case No. 5(4)/93 under Section 279/338 IPC was registered against the driver of the vehicle.

4. As narrated in the claim petition the deceased husband of the claimant was a Government employee and was aged about 35 years at the time of his death. He left behind his claimant/Appellant wife and a minor son, aged about 8 years. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act for awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- on account of death of her husband due to the aforesaid accident. As stated above, it was a complete denial on the part of the Respondents that their said vehicle was at all involved in the said accident. According to them, the vehicle was away from Tripura to Mizoram and thus there was no question of involvement of the said vehicle in the accident.

5. The learned Member, MACT (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by the impugned judgment dated 7.1.98 rejected the claim of the claimant holding that the claimant failed to prove the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No. TRA-2131, in the aforesaid accident.

6. Documents were filed and the parties before the Tribunal examined witnesses. Initially, there was a judgment of the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 1,92,000/-. However, the said award being ex-parte without any service of notice on the Respondents, the award was set aside on appeal by this Court in MAF No. 24/95 and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. Upon such remand, the Tribunal again took up the matter and the following issues were framed for decision:

(i) Did Pabitra Bhattacharjee die of motor accident on 6.4.93 at about 10 a.m. at Siddhi Ashram due to rash and negligent driving of TRA-2131 (Jeep)?

(ii) Is the claimant-Petitioners entitled to any compensation?

(iii) If so, what should be the amount of compensation and who is liable to pay it?

7. The claimant/Appellant examined two witnesses and the Respondents also examined two witnesses. The foundation of the case of the claimant/Appellant relating to involvement of the aforesaid vehicle of the Respondents in the accident lay on the FIR filed by one Sri Anil Chandra Das of Siddhi Ashram, Agartala, Tripura. The FIR dated 8.4.93, which was filed after two days of the accident indicated the aforesaid vehicle to be involved in the aforesaid accident. However, the informant who lodged the FIR was not examined to prove the FIR. The claimant and her witness deposed only on the basis of the said FIR so far as the involvement of the said vehicle is concerned. The claimant was not an eyewitness. The PW-2, who deposed in favour of the claimant, although, mentioned about the said vehicle bearing registration No. TRA 21