Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 133
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
Deepak Gupta, CJ.
Md. Safique Miah - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Mataleb Gaji and National Insurance Company Ltd. - Respondent
MAC App No. 41 of 2008
Decided On : 25-03-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. S.K. Datta, Advocate
For the Respondents: None
The importance of providing specific details and evidence to establish liability in motor vehicle accident claims.
Headnote:
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 166 - Summary: The court discussed the claim petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, alleging injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The court analyzed the evidence presented, including the discharge certificates and the FIR, and found that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and the injuries suffered. The court emphasized the importance of providing specific details such as the driver's name, co-passengers, and insurance policy to establish liability. The lack of evidence and delay in filing the complaint led to the dismissal of the claim petition.
Fact of the Case:
The claimant filed a claim petition alleging injuries in a motor vehicle accident, but failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the occurrence of the accident and the injuries suffered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the claimant had miserably failed to prove that the accident had taken place, and dismissed the claim petition.
Issues: Failure to prove the occurrence of the accident, lack of specific details and evidence, delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of providing specific details such as the driver's name, co-passengers, and insurance policy to establish liability. The lack of evidence and delay in filing the complaint led to the dismissal of the claim petition.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Deepak Gupta; C.J.:-This appeal by the claimant is directed against the award dated 17-01-2008 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) 148 of 2005 whereby he dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant had miserably failed to prove that he suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The claimant filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act) alleging that on 01-10-1994 at about 10 a.m. he was returning from Sonamura to his village in a commander jeep. When the said jeep reached Grantali, it was stopped on the extreme left side of the road. Thereafter, the claimant along with some other passengers got down from the back side of the jeep. In the mean time, another vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01-2191 (Jeep) came from the same direction. The said jeep was being driven rashly and negligently at a very high speed. The second jeep dashed against the victim resulting in injuries to him. Thereafter, the claimant was taken to the hospital at Melagarh and he was then referred to the hospital at Agartala where he remained admitted from 01-10-1994 to 29-10-1994. According to the allegations made in the claim petition, thereafter the claimant was again admitted in the Melagarh Hospital from 29-10-1994 to 28-11-1994.
2. The driver of the jeep was not named and only the owner of the jeep was named as Abdul Mataleb Gaji and the National Insurance Company Limited was named as the insurer of the vehicle. The owner did not file any reply to the claim petition and the Insurance Company filed a reply and one of the main objections taken was that there were no particulars of any insurance policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company denied that the vehicle was insured with it. The Insurance Company also denied that any occurrence had taken place as alleged in the claim petition.
3. The claimant in support of his claim filed an affidavit and the affidavit is virtually a copy of the averments made in the claim petition. The claimant was not even cross-examined since none appeared for the respondents. Normally in such a case, the statement of the claimant should have been believed. However, there are certain facts which are peculiar to the facts of this case. According to the claimant, he was traveling in some other jeep. He gives the number of the jeep which allegedly dashed against him, but he has not given the number of the jeep in which he was traveling. He has not even given the names of the driver of either of the jeeps and has not named any of his co-passengers in the jeep though admittedly according to him, there were co-passengers.
4. The claimant led evidence and filed documents. One of the documents is the discharge certificate issued by the G.B. Hospital. The discharge certificate shows that the claimant was admitted in hospital on 01-10-1994 and discharged therefrom on 29-10-1994 and that the claimant had suffered some fracture injuries. There is no mention in this discharge certificate that the claimant had suffered injuries in a road traffic accident. The normal practice in the State of Tripura is that when an injured person informs the Doctor that he has received injuries in an accident, it is mentioned that the injuries were received in RTA (road traffic accident).
5. The claimant also alleges that after his discharge, he was again readmitted in the Melagarh Hospital. One fails to understand why a person who is discharged from one hospital would get admitted in another hospital. The claimant has also produced a discharge certificate of the Melagarh Hospital where he remained admitted from 29-10-1994 to 28-11-1994 for post operative treatment of his ankle. Even in this discharge certificate, there is no mention of any road traffic accident. No FIR was lodged immediately at the time of the occurrence or at the time when the claimant was firstly taken for treatment to Melagarh Hospital, then a
