JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. None appears for the respondent No. 1. As for the respondent No. 2, his name was struck off as he was the driver of the accident vehicle, who died in the accident. By filing this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act), the appellant who was also the claimant before the Tribunal has challenged the Judgment & Award dated 12.10.2020 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Case No. 66/2017, dismissing the claim of the appellant for compensation under Section 166 of the MV Act.

[2.] Brief facts of the case is that on 28.10.2015 at 11 P.M, a Bolero Pick-Up bearing registration No. MZ 03-5166 owned by the respondent No. 1 and driven by the respondent No. 2 met with an accident between Kawlchaw to Serkawr village. There were two (2) occupants in the vehicle i.e., the respondent No. 2 the driver and Sh. H. Khochhua, who is the paternal uncle of the instant appellant and because of the accident, they both died on the spot. The vehicle had rolled down from the main road into the gorge which was about 300 meters below the road. According to the appellant, the deceased Sh. Khochhua was a Carpenter by profession and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 18,200/-. The appellant being the nephew of the deceased was dependent upon the income of the deceased. As such, a claim was made under Section 166 of the MV Act. According to the appellant, all the documents of the accident vehicle were in order.

[3.] The appellant in support of his claim examined two (2) claimant witnesses before the learned Tribunal i.e., himself and the Police Officer who prepared the Police Verification Report. Against the claim, the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 as opposite parties before the Tribunal filed their written statement. The learned Tribunal upon considering the claim and hearing the parties dismissed the claim vide Judgment & Award dated 12.10.2020. Aggrieved, the claimant has filed the instant appeal.

[4.] Mr. C. Tlanthianghlima, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the grounds of challenge of the impugned Judgment & Award are three (3) fold. Firstly, all the documents submitted by the appellant i.e., the Driving License of the driver who drove the accident vehicle, the Insurance Policy, the vehicle registration etc., are valid. The appellant had also exhibited the Police Verification Report which clearly stated that the cause of the accident was due to slippery road. He submits that since the road was slippery, the driver of the accident vehicle ought to have been careful in driving the said vehicle. It was only due to his negligence that the accident had occurred leading to the death of the occupants of the vehicle. Secondly, the learned counsel submits that the vehicle which met with an accident was a hired vehicle, hired by the deceased Sh. H. Khochhua. Therefore, the claim under Section 166 of the MV Act made by the appellant who is the dependent of the deceased person is maintainable. Thirdly, the learned counsel submits that from the Police Verification Report, it is clearly established that the accident occurred on 28.10.2015 at 11 PM and the cause of the accident was due to slippery road. As such, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable to the present case and the learned Tribunal committed an error in dismissing the claim of the appellant. The learned counsel therefore submits that the impugned Judgment & Award should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The learned counsel in support of his submission relies upon the following authorities:-

(1) Bimla Devi & Ors. -Vs- Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 530.

(2) Special Secy. Govt. of Nagaland & Anr. -Vs- Ladsie & Ors. 2006 (2) GLT 555.

[5.] Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand submits that a similar claim although under Sectio