The court emphasized that relying solely on an accident report is insufficient for determining liability, necessitating a comprehensive assessment of all available evidence.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.

Heard Mr. K K Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. I A Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant as well as Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.

2. None appears for the remaining respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 & 5, despite Office Note dated 23.09.2022 records service completed against the aforesaid respondents, which has also been duly noted by this Court by order dated 02.11.2022.

3. The matter is taken up for hearing today.

4. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat in M.A.C. Case No. 09/2010, whereby a sum of Rs. 3,90,000/- (three lakhs ninety thousand) only was awarded as compensation together with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.

5. The case of the claimant, i.e., respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, was that on the date of occurrence, while travelling as a passenger in the bus bearing registration no. ASD-25-A-5429 (hereinafter referred to as the offending bus), a truck bearing registration no. AS-09-A-1286 (hereinafter referred to as the offending truck) being driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck the bus with great force, as a result of which he and other passengers suffered multiple injuries including fracture in his legs.

6. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the materials available on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus and since the accident report indicated only the bus as the offending vehicle, exonerated the insurer of the offending truck, i.e., the respondent No. 6 and fixed the entire liability on the insurer of the offending bus, i.e., the present appellant.

7. Mr. K K Bhatta, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the finding of the Tribunal in fastening the entire liability on the appellant is contrary to the record. He further submits that the claimant himself in his examination-in-chief has clearly stated that the accident occurred when the offending truck hit the offending bus from behind, which clearly shows the involvement and contributory negligence of both the offending vehicles. He further submits that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the version of the claimant only because the accident report mentions the offending bus alone, though the maker of the said report/investigating officer was never examined to prove its contents.

8. In support of his aforesaid arguments, he relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khenyei Vs- New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 , wherein the Apex Court has held that in case of composite negligence in the event both the parties to the component of composite negligence are before the Court and the evidence is sufficient, the Tribunal shall determine the extent of their negligence so that both the parties at fault are equally made liable.

9. Per contra, Ms. M Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6, while supporting the award under appeal, submits that the accident report exhibited by the appellant as Exhibit-1 clearly shows the bus as the offending vehicle and that no material whatsoever was brought by the appellant to show that the offending truck was also at fault. She further submits that in cross-examination, the claimant denied the involvement of the offending truck in the accide