Point of law : Accident Claims Tribunal must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and persons liable do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the present appellant Hafija Begum challenging the sustainability of the judgment and order dated 14.11.2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai in MAC Case No. 344/12, whereby the claim petition filed by the present appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present case is that on 13.03.2012 at about 4:30 A.M., while the husband of the appellant Abdul Wahab Barbhuyan was driving a vehicle bearing No. AS-25C-3207 (Truck) and when the vehicle reached at eighth mile the break of the vehicle did not work. So, the deceased jumped out from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on his person. Though he was taken to Jowai Civil Hospital but ultimately succumbed to his injuries.

3. The present appellant being claimant in MAC Case No. 344/12 filed a petition under Section 166/140 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the owner of the vehicle and insurer of the vehicle National Insurance Co. Ltd, claimed a compensation of Rs. 25,43,190/- for the death of her husband Abdul Wahab Barbhuyan. After completion of trial the learned Tribunal has dismissed the case on the ground that the accident was not occurred due to mechanical defect of the vehicle. As the vehicle was not examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector showing the damage to the vehicle which was driving by the deceased at the relevant time of accident, under such circumstances, the driver is to prove the fact that he was not driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner for which the accident took place. Therefore, in such situation the driver cannot claim any compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

4. The Tribunal also referred the judgment of Ningamma and Another Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in AIR 2009 SC 3056 which is reproduced as follows-

“In the case of Ningamma (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when an application of the aforesaid nature claiming compensation under the provision of 166 of M.V. Act is received, the Tribunal is required to hold the enquiry into the claim and then proceed to make an award which, however, would be subject to be provisions of Section 162, by determining the amount of compensation, which is found to be just. Person or persons who made claim for compensation would therefore be paid such amount. When such a claim is made by the legal representatives of the deceased, it has to be proved that the deceased was not himself responsible for the accident by rash and negligent driving.”

5. As per the case of the appellant/claimant, her husband Abdul Wahab Barbhuyan, being driver of the vehicle bearing No. AS-25C-3207 (Truck) met with an accident and succumbed to his injuries as the vehicle being driven by him lost control due to sudden break failure. As such the accident occurred due to mechanical defect of the vehicle and not because of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle.

6. In support of such contentions, the claimant herself stepped into the witness box and examined as P.W. 1 who deposed in her evidence that on 13.03.2012 at about 4:30 A.M. the vehicle bearing No. AS-25C-3207 (Truck) which was driving by her husband met with an accident at Lalip under Jowai P.S. and her husband died during treatment in the hospital. It is further stated that the accident occurred due to failure of the break and the vehicle dashed against the side of nearby hillock. As a result, the door of the vehicle was opened and her husband fell from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries on his person. Admittedly, P.W.1 was not present when the accident took place. In his cross examination P.W. 1 also stated that she did not witness the accident. Her husband was the driver of the Truck. He did not know the name of the owner of the vehicle.

7. P.W. 2 Rahimuddin Laskar, claimed that he accompanied the deceased at the relevant time of accident. He was in the vehicle. From his deposition it reveals that just before the accident when the vehicle r