JUDGMENT & ORDER :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

This appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘the MV Act’, for short] is directed against a Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge [FTC], Dibrugarh, Assam [‘the Tribunal’, for short] in MACT Case no. 23/2000. By the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2011, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application filed by the appellant as the claimant under Section 166, MV Act seeking a compensation of Rs. 62,100/- for damages caused to its motor vehicle bearing Registration no. 94D 107607-W [Swaraj Mazda] [‘the defence vehicle’, for short] allegedly in a road traffic accident occurred on 12.06.1998 near Main Gate of Air Force Station at Chabua on the National Highway no. 37.

2. In the claim application, the appellant - claimant impleaded the owners and the driver of a oil tanker bearing registration no. WB-73/0715 [‘the oil tanker’, for short] as opposite party nos. 1 & 2 and opposite party no. 3 respectively. The insurer of the oil tanker was impleaded as opposite party no. 4. They are arrayed as respondents in the present appeal in the same order.

3. In the claim application, it was mentioned that the oil tanker was parked on the left side of the National Highway no. 37 near the Main Gate of the Air Force Station, Chabua without keeping back parking lights on and as a result, the driver of the defence vehicle had hit the oil tanker from behind while giving side to an oncoming heavy vehicle from the opposite direction. It was mentioned that the defence vehicle was badly damaged in the accident and the loss caused to the vehicle was estimated at Rs. 62,100/- in a Technical Inspection Report.

4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant side examined three witnesses to support the claim. The driver of the defence vehicle was examined as P.W.1. Two other witnesses, who were serving personnel in the Indian Air Force and then posted at Air Force Station of Chabua, were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. The two witnesses, P.W.2, S.P. Jugran and P.W.3, Umesh Kumar Singh did not testify to the effect that they were witnesses to the accident. The claimant side exhibited six documents viz. Exhibit - 1 : Authorization Letter authorizing, S.P. Jugran [P.W.2] to attend the hearing of the claim application; Exhibit - 2 : Accident Information Report in Form 54, issued by the Officer In- Charge, Chabua Police Station; Exhibit - 3 : A Traffic Accident Report prepared by a Wing Commander, Indian Air Force; Exhibit - 4 : A Sketch Plan of the spot of accident; Exhibit - 5 : Series of photographs of the vehicles involved in the accident; and Exhibit - 6 : Technical Inspection Report.

5. The Tribunal upon analysis of the evidence on record, reached at the finding that the oil tanker was parked on the left side of the road and the defence vehicle, which was being driven by P.W.1, had collided with the parked oil tanker. On the basis of the Accident Information Report [Exhibit - 2], the Tribunal noticed the Police had registered a case for rash and negligent driving of the defence vehicle, which was driven by P.W.1, and it was the driver of the defence vehicle who had caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving on his part for which two persons were injured and another one succumbed to his injuries. The Tribunal viewed that the factum of death of a person due to the accident was found to be suppressed by all three witnesses of the claimant’s side. The Tribunal recorded a view that suppression of such material fact would lead to an adverse presumption that P.W.1 was allegedly involved in a rash and negligent driving on the date of the accident. Taking notice of the fact that the witnesses had admitted that the oil tanker was parked on the left side of the road and the fact that a person had died in the accident caused by the defence vehicle, driven by P.W.1, the Tribunal observed that the same would show negligence on the part of P.W