JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. This appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is against the impugned Judgment dated 26-06-2013 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 180 of 2009 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that the late Rajaram Yadav aged about 40 years, on 10.01.2009 at about 10:30 a.m., was engaged in loading goods (fertilizer) contained in the bags, in his capacity of a collie, on the Truck No. AS-01-AC/3290 at Noonmati, B.G. Yard, Guwahati. The said Rajaram Yadav (deceased) fell down from the Truck while loading the goods/ fertilizer bags and on the forced impact by press of some goods, sustained grievous bodily injured and thereby succumbed to the injuries. The incident was registered at Noonmati Police Station U/D Case No.03/2009, dated 10.01.2009 and on completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted under 174 Cr.P.C. before the learned CJM, Kamrup, Guwahati. The appellants/claimants who is the wife and children of the deceased Rajaram Yadav, the sole bread winner of his family, claimed for compensation under 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the learned MAC Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati.

4. The respondent No.3 denied the allegation of the appellant claiming that there was no cause of action and that claim petition was not maintainable. The following issues were framed by the learned MAC Tribunal Kamrup, Guwahati ;

1. Whether the victim Rajaram Yadav died on account of bodily injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident dtd.10.01.2009, involving offending Truck bearing No.AS/01-SC3290 arising out of the use of the motor vehicle?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation and if so, to what extent and by whom payable?

3. What other relief(s), if any the claimants are entitled to?

5. The learned Tribunal vide its Order dated 04.02.2010 awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to the claimants on the principle of no fault liability considering the materials on record.

6. Thereafter, on taking evidence on hearing both the parties, the learned MAC Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment & Order dated 26.06.2013 holding that the deceased did not die from the use of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AC/3290 but died due to the force impact by press of some goods. And thus held that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment & Order dated 26.06.2013, this appeal has been preferred.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the facts of the case, it is not disputed that the incident occurred due to fall of the deceased Rajaram Yadav, while he was loading the fertilizer bags on the said vehicle and that he sustained serious injurious on the impact of press of some of the goods.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation was claimed under 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which clearly provides that compensation can be granted in respect of accident involving the death of, or bodily injury, persons arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. He submits that in the instant case since it is an undisputed fact that the deceased had suddenly falling down from the truck thus sustaining serious injurious on the impact of press of some of the goods which caused this death, therefore the vehicle was duly involved in the accident and the claimants are entitled to compensation u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rita Devi & Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113, National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, Mafisuddin Khadim vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2011 (1) GLT 309 & CRP/172/2019 dated 03