The court ruled that insufficient evidence connecting the death to a motor vehicle accident justified the remand to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the case with all necessary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Budi Habung, J.

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mrs.S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite of the receipt of notice.

3. This appeal under Section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimganj, in MAC Case No. 18/2011, whereby, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT was dismissed on the ground that the death of the deceased was not proved to have been caused by a motor vehicle accident, and that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the Investigating Officer and the witnesses for wrongful gain.

4. The case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal was that the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellants Nos. 2 to 5, namely Late Pabitra Das, had left home on 15.01.2011 for Jangla Kalibari at Badarpur Ghat, where he stayed for the night. On the following day, i.e., on 16.01.2011, while returning home, he was allegedly hit by a Tata Magic vehicle bearing registration No. AS-10C-1408 at Badarpur Ghat, Alakulipur, at about 3:00 P.M., due to which he sustained injuries. He was then taken to the hospital by the police.

5. The deceased was admitted to Srigouri CHC Hospital and subsequently shifted to SMCH, where he succumbed to his injuries on 17.01.2011. Appellant No. 1 came to know about the death of her husband only after five days, i.e., on 21.01.2011, through the pan shop owner (P.W.3), who is stated to be an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.3 informed her that he had witnessed the accident occurred near his pan shop, at a distance of about 30 meters.

6. On the suggestion of P.W.3, appellant No. 1 visited the police station, where she identified the deceased to be her husband from the photographs shown to her by the police. Thereafter, she returned home to perform the last rites of her deceased husband. The FIR was lodged about 20 days later. After investigation, the police are stated to have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.

7. The appellants claimed that the deceased was about 45 years old, he was working as a mason, earning Rs. 250/- per day. The appellants filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand) only. Appellants/claimants examined three witnesses — appellant No. 1 herself as P.W.1, a co-worker of the deceased as P.W.2, and an alleged eyewitness as P.W.3.

8. The eyewitness (P.W.3) stated that he saw a vehicle hit a person about 30 meters away from his pan shop, but he did not go near the scene to identify the victim. He later heard that the person had died in the hospital. In cross- examination, he admitted that his pan shop no longer existed at the time of his deposition.

9. The claimant/appellant No. 1 produced the post-mortem report and inquest report. The Investigating Officer, who is stated to have taken the dead body to the hospital, was not examined. No General Diary entry or charge sheet was exhibited, and the photographs stated to have been shown to appellant No. 1 at the police station, based on which she identified the deceased as her husband was also not produced in evidence.

10. However, two doctors, one who treated the deceased when he was still alive and the other who conducted the post-mortem along with the Circle Officer who held the inquest, were examined as court witnesses.

11. The first doctor, a homeopathic doctor at Sr