The principle of res ipsa loquitur was applied to infer negligence from the nature of the accident, and the court emphasized the sufficiency of evidence in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J

1. The learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim at Gangtok (hereinafter “learned Tribunal”) vide the impugned Judgment dated 28.07.2017, in MACT Case No. 27 of 2016 (Mrs. Pabitra Singh Kami and Another v. Municipal Commissioner, Gangtok Municipal Corporation and Others) directed payment of compensation of Rs.17,29,380/-(Rupees seventeen lakhs, twenty nine thousand, three hundred and eighty) only, to the Respondents No. 1 and 2 (Claimants No. 1 and 2 before the learned Tribunal) by the Appellant No. 1 (Opposite Party No. 1 before the learned Tribunal) along with interest fixed thereon. Aggrieved thereof the Appellants No. 1 and 2 are before this Court.

2. A motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.07.2015 at a place known as “32 Number,” whereby a commercial vehicle bearing No. WB-76-7946 (Tata Sumo, Gold), driven by the deceased from Gangtok to Siliguri, allegedly hit a parapet and a telephone pole on the left side of the road and was thereafter struck from behind by the Truck bearing No. SK-01-D-2807, driven by the Appellant No. 2 (Opposite Party No. 2 before the learned Tribunal). This caused the Sumo to careen off about 100 feet below the road, leading to the instantaneous death of the deceased. Respondent No. 1, wife of the deceased and Respondent No. 2, his daughter claimed compensation of Rs.20,04,386/-(Rupees twenty lakhs, four thousand, three hundred and eighty six) only.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, the Appellants No. 1 and 2 (Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2, therein) vehemently denied the claims of the Respondents and averred that the accident occurred solely on account of the fault of the deceased. Neither was the vehicle of the Appellant No. 1 involved in the alleged accident nor was the Appellant No. 2 responsible for rash and negligent driving or the death of the deceased.

4. The Respondent No. 3 averred inter alia that the cause of accident and the death of the victim was the outcome of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the Appellant No. 2, who failed to maintain a safe braking distance. Besides the deceased was the owner of the vehicle and being the Insured did not come within the ambit of Third Party and hence could not be compensated.

5. The learned Tribunal after due consideration of the pleadings struck one issue for determination viz.

“(1) Whether the Claimants are entitled to the compensation claimed? If so, who is liable to compensate them?”

On consideration of the entire evidence on record and the documents furnished before it, the learned Tribunal pronounced the impugned Judgment granting the compensation supra to the Respondents No. 1 and 2.

6. Before this Court, learned Counsel for the Appellants put forth the contention that it is doubtful as to whether the deceased was a kin of Respondents No. 1 and 2 as Exhibit 2, the First Information Report (for short “FIR”) lodged by one Ratan Pradhan before the Police Inspector, Singtam Police Station mentioned the name of the deceased as “Chaman Diyali” and not “Harka Raj Biswakarma” the person the Respondents No. 1 and 2 claim is their kin and finds place in the Claim Petition. The name of the deceased on Exhibit 12, the Income Tax Return Verification Form, allegedly of the deceased also differs. That, the name of the deceased in the Property Seizure Memo Exhibit 3, the Inquest Report Exhibit 4, the Death Certificate Exhibit 8, Driving Licence Exhibit 9 and the PAN Card Exhibit 10, all vary, consequently raising doubts on the very identification of the deceased. It was next contended that although the accident occurred on 04.07.2015, Exhibit 12 is dated 03.11.2015 much after the accident, thereby raising doubts on the income of the deceased. Besides, the Claim Petition has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the “M.V. Act”) with no proof of rash and negligent driving on the