The main legal point established is that in a motor vehicle accident, the party at fault can be determined based on the position of the vehicles and the evidence of negligence.

This appeal by the Superintendent of Police of Mobile Task Force (S.P., MTF) is directed against the award dated 30th July, 2011 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in T.S. (MAC) 504 of 2008 whereby, he allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,12,000/-in favour of the claimant along with interest.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this claim petition, it was alleged that on 12.11.2007, the claimant was traveling as pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No. TR-01-C-4597. This Motor cycle was being driven by one Sattar Miah. According to the claimant, this motor cycle was at a normal speed and the vehicle No. TR-01-B-1077, jeep came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the front portion of the motor cycle by the back side of the jeep. Both the driver and the pillion rider received grievous injuries and the petitioner became unconscious at the spot. The local people shifted the petitioner to the Agartala Medical College and G.B. Panth Hospital where he remained admitted from 12.11.2007 to 11.12.2007 i.e. for a period of one month. The petitioner claimed that he had received serious injuries and his leg has been permanently disabled and, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.4,26,000/-.

3. The respondent No. 1 contested the claim petition and submitted that the true facts were that on 12.11.2007, the commander jeep bearing No. TR-01-B-1077 of MTF organization had been taken by Head Constable Kajal Das along with Constable Purna Behari Jamatia from the MTF headquarters to deliver some urgent dak at police headquarters. The case of the respondent is that the vehicle was parked on the left side of the main road near police headquarters and that Purna Behari Jamatia had gone inside the headquarters to deliver the dak. After some time, the said constable returned to the vehicle after delivering the dak papers and when the vehicle had just been started there was a severe jerk and it was found that the motor cycle had hit the jeep from behind. According to the respondents, both the driver and the constable got down and noted the motor cycle number. There were 3 persons on the motor cycle and one of them was the petitioner. It was therefore contended that there was no fault of the driver of the jeep.

4. Issues were framed and evidence was led.

5. The learned Tribunal held that the claimant in his deposition had categorically stated that the offending jeep suddenly took a back turn without any caution or signal and dashed into the motor cycle and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. According to the learned Tribunal, there was virtually no cross-examination of the claimant and he has discarded the statements of the driver and Constable Purna Behari Jamatia, who were admittedly present at the spot. The learned Tribunal, thereafter, passed an award of Rs.1,12,000/- along with interest.

6. Mr. J. Majumder, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal gravely erred in holding that the negligence was of the driver of the jeep. He submits that from the evidence on record it is apparent that the case set up in evidence is different to that which was set up in the original pleading. He also submits that admittedly, the jeep was hit from behind and therefore, it was for the motor cycle driver to explain how the jeep had been hit from behind. He lastly submits that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in ignoring the statements of the driver of the jeep and the persons traveling in the vehicle.

7. At the outset, I may observe that in the claim petition, it was stated that when the motor cycle reached in front of ‘Trinayani Club’, at that time the jeep vehicle suddenly tried to turn back and hit the front portion of the bike. While appearing in the witness box, the claimant has filed an affidavit, which is a carbon copy of the claim