Territorial jurisdiction challenges must be raised at the earliest opportunity. Furthermore, an acquittal in criminal proceedings does not absolve a party of civil liability in compensation claims, as the latter is determined by the standard of preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

[1] Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellants.

Also heard Mr. A. Acharya, the learned counsel for the respondents.

[2] This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants, namely, Kulendra Pathak and Jitendra Pathak, impugning the judgment and award dated 30.06.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 791/2015, whereby, the appellants were directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 29,82,000/- along with an interest @ 7% per annum to the respondents/claimants.

[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 31.01.2015, one Bishnu Jyoti Pathak was travelling in a vehicle bearing Registration No. MH-14-BX-1288 from Pathali Pahar to Charaidoloni. When the said vehicle reached near Jorabari, it met with an accident, when it dashed against the roadside tree, as a result of which the said Bishnu Jyoti Pathak sustained injuries and later on, succumbed to his injuries. It is further relevant to note that at the time of the accident, apart from the deceased three other persons were travelling in the “ill-fated,” vehicle, the deceased was sitting on the front seat beside the driver seat, whereas, the present appellant No. 2 was driving the vehicle.

[4] Later on, the present respondents/claimants being dependence and legal representatives of the deceased filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati seeking compensation for death of Late Bishnu Jyoti Pathak in the aforementioned vehicular accident. The aforesaid application was registered as MAC Case No. 791/2015. The opposite parties, including the present appellants contested the case by filing the written statement, wherein, the owner of the vehicle took the plea that he has already sold and transferred the “ill-fated,” vehicle to the appellant No. 2, however, the registration certificate of the offending vehicle still bear his name.

[5] It was contended in the written statement that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself as he was sitting in the front side of the vehicle and when he saw a heavy vehicle coming from the opposite direction, he became nervous and pull the hand break of the car in which they were travelling and also jumped outside the vehicle, as a result of which he sustained injuries.

[6] On the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal: -

i. Whether the victim, Bishnujyoti Pathak, died in the alleged road accident dated 31.01.11 involving vehicle no. MH- 14/BX-1288 and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

ii. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?

[7] During the enquiry the claimants examined 3(three)

witnesses, in support of their claim, whereas, the contesting opposite part