The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering evidence in its entirety, the interpretation of documentary evidence, and the reliance on public documents under the Indian Evidence Act in reaching a decision.

Wangdi, J.

This Appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated 07-05-2013 of the Learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South and West Sikkim at Namchi (in short “Learned Claims Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T. Case No.32 of 2011 by which the claim for death compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the Appellant, was rejected.

2. The Appellant is the brother of the deceased and the Respondents No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs and representatives of Ram Singhasan Prasad, the owner of the truck bearing registration No.SK-03/1208, that met with the fatal accident.

3. There is no dispute of the fact that the deceased was employed as a handy boy in the truck bearing registration No.SK-03/1208 that met with an accident while travelling from Soreng, West Sikkim to Jorethang, South Sikkim on 07-12-2010. It is also not disputed that the deceased had died in that accident.

4. From the records of the Learned Claims Tribunal it appears that notice of the Claim Petition was issued to all the Respondents including the Respondent No.4, the insurer, but despite its service the Respondent No.4 failed to appear and was accordingly proceeded ex parte. We may not delay ourselves further on the other facts of the case as they are irrelevant and inconsequential for the purpose of disposal of this Appeal.

5. While disposing off the case, the Learned Claims Tribunal appears to have framed five issues out of which issues no.1 and 5, in our view, appear to be relevant. For convenience, the two issues are reproduced below:

Issue No.1

Whether the deceased late Padam Bahadur Darjee died in a motor vehicle accident while travelling from Soreng to Jorethang in the vehicle bearing Registration No:SK-03/1208 (Tata Truck) on 07.12.2010 at Vir Dara near Soeng Bazar, West Sikkim?

Issue No.5

Whether Claimant are entitled for compensations prayed, if so, who is liable to pay the compensation?

6. Issue No.1

While dealing with this issue, the Learned Claims Tribunal appears to have arrived at the conclusion that the Claimant/Appellant had failed to prove that it was Padam Darjee who had died in a motor vehicle accident on 07-12-2010. The Tribunal found that there was a doubt as regards the identity of the deceased as the name of the deceased has been found mentioned as ‘Padam Gurung alias Binod @ Maila’, ‘S/O Lt. Jai Bir Galay’ in the certified true copy of the ‘Dead body Identification Memo’ Exhibit 7. The certificate, Exhibit 11, issued by the Secretary, Jhepi Gram Panchayat, Darjeeling Pul-Bazar Development Block, Bijanbari, certifying that Late Padam Darjee and three others were the sons and daughters of Late Jaibir Darjee and permanent residents of Upper Sumbuck Busty, P.O. Jhepi, P.S.Pulbazar in the District of Darjeeling, was rejected by the Learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that the person who issued the certificate, Exhibit 11 was not examined in order to prove its content and that he had also failed to prove his relation with the deceased Padam Gurung, son of Late Jai Bir Ghalay. It was also noted that the name appearing in the certificate, Exhibit 11, did not tally with the one contained in the Identification Memo, Exhibit 7 in as much as in Exhibit 11 the name of father of the Claimant is entered as ‘Jaibir Darjee’ whereas in Exhibit 7 it has been entered as ‘Jai Bir Galay’. It was thus concluded that the Appellant/Claimant had failed to prove that the deceased was indeed his brother Padam Dajree and not someone else named Padam Gurung.

7. Issue No.5

Consequential to the finding on issue no.1, this said issue was decided against the Claimant as the Claims Tribunal came to the finding that the Claimant had failed to prove that he was the legal representative of the deceased because “he failed to prove his relation with the deceased Padam Gurung who died in the accident”.

8. Upon hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the sole question for determination in the present case is as to wh