Proper constitution of claims on behalf of minors, admissibility of evidence, and procedural requirements in motor accident cases.

1. This appeal is directed against the award dated 23-12-2004 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonamura, West Tripura in case No. T.S. (MAC) 282 of 2000 whereby he dismissed the claim of the petitioner solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to prove that he had received injuries in an accident which took place on 30-01-2000 with commander jeep bearing No.TR-01-3273. The claimant Jahar Ali was a minor at the relevant time and the petition was filed by Md. Abu Taher Miah, his father. The petition was not properly constituted inasmuch as the minor was not even made a party in the claim petition.

2. This Court has repeatedly held that when a claim is filed on behalf of a minor or any other person suffering from a disability whereby that person cannot file a suit, the suit has to be filed in the name of the said person but the same may be filed by the natural guardian or next friend, as the case may be. The suit has to be titled “xxx minor through his guardian and next friend yyy”. The guardian or next friend has no personal interest of the matter and cannot file a suit in his own capacity claiming it to be on behalf of the minor. However, because this has been the practice prevalent in Tripura for a long time, I am treating this appeal to be filed by Jahar Ali alone since he has attained majority by now.

3. The allegation of the petitioner was that the injured minor son Jahar Ali was hit by vehicle No.TR-01-3273 and thereafter, he was admitted at the hospital in Melaghar and then at G.B. Hospital, Agartala. The FIR was not filed on 30-01-2000. The FIR was filed on 08-03-2000 and in the FIR it is stated that the accident took place on 06-02-2000. The learned Tribunal rightly held that since the accident was alleged to have taken place on 06-02-2000, then the injuries suffered by Jahar Ali could not have taken place in the accident which took place on 06-02-2000 since he was already admitted in hospital on 30-01-2000.

4. An application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to place on record the FIR, police report and medical documents. These in no way detract from what is written in the complaint filed by the father of the injured who was a minor. No affidavit has been filed on behalf of the father of the injured that the statement given by him to the police is incorrect. The father appeared in the witness box and at that time stated that the accident had taken place on 30-01-2000 but did not say a word as to why in his written complaint to the police he had stated that the accident took place on 06-02-2000. However, from the record I find that when the complainant was admitted in the Melaghar Hospital on 30-01-2000, it has been clearly recorded that he suffered injuries in a road traffic accident.

5. Time and again, this Court is observing that even in such cases where it is clearly stated that a claimant has suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident, no effort is made to record or to lodge an FIR. Therefore, I feel that certain instructions are required to be issued in this regard.

6. As far as the merits of the case are concerned, the claimant now wants to rely upon certain documents which had not been placed before the trial Court. Furthermore, the father will have to step into the witness box and clarify whether his statement in Court is correct or whether what he has stated in his complaint dated 08-03-2000 is correct. The Insurance Company is the only party contesting the case, since the owner appears to have washed his hands off the matter. The driver was not even made a party to the claim petition. This Court has repeatedly held that though the driver may not be a necessary party, he is definitely a proper party in such petitions. The owner is held liable to pay compensation only by applying the principle of vicarious liability which means that the master is liable for the acts of his employee but the master cannot be held liable unless the emp