Back
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
UNION OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
ANSUMI BARO W/O BHUPEN BARO @ GHUSUM BARO – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. K.K. Parasar, learned counsel representing the appellants as well as Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 23.04.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darrang, Mangaldai in MAC (D) Case No. 57/2017.
3. On 19.11.2009 at about 7 P.M. Late Bhupen Baro @ Ghusum Baro was riding a bicycle at Bagpuri Tiniali Chowk under Tangla Police Station. At that time, a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) vehicle hit him from behind. As a result of which, Bhupen Baro @ Ghusum Baro died on the spot. An FIR was lodged and Tangla P.S. Case No. 83/09 was registered. The deceased was a businessman by profession and was earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month. He was 30 years old and left behind his wife and one minor son.
4. A claim petition seeking compensation was filed. The claimant stated in her evidence that one SSB vehicle had caused the accident leading to the death of her husband. She examined two other witnesses namely, Dejit Rabha and Ramesh Baro.
5. Dejit Rabha stated in his evidence that h
Liability for compensation in motor vehicle accidents requires clear evidence linking the vehicle to the accident; mere assumptions or similarities in vehicle appearance are insufficient.
In motor accident cases, the standard of proof required is preponderance of probabilities, and the court must take a holistic view of evidence to infer culpability from reasonable circumstances.
The court determined that despite initial perceptions of murder, the evidence supported the incident as a motor accident, warranting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to prove the involvement of a specific motorbike in a vehicular accident to support a claim for compensation.
The need to establish the deceased was not responsible for the accident and the requirement to prove insurance coverage to make the insurance company liable for compensation.
The Tribunal's award of compensation for death in a motor vehicle accident is maintainable if a causal connection exists, regardless of conspiracy allegations without proof.
Insurance company failed to prove claims regarding accident conditions, and court affirmed the Tribunal's compensation award based on lack of evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
