The burden of proving negligence in a vehicular accident lies with the claimants, and the court can consider converting a claim petition under Section 163-A for calculating compensation based on a structured formula.

This appeal under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is directed against the judgment dated 25-11-2013 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura in Title Suit (MAC) No.32 of 2012 awarding a compensation of Rs.15,72,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum with effect from the date of claim petition on the ground that there was no proof of negligence.

2. The facts giving rise to the appeal may be briefly noticed at the outset. On 13-11-2011, when the deceased Nirmal Das was proceeding from Dhumachara towards Manu by a motor bike bearing registration number TR-02-B-8171 driven by one Sarat Mohan Tripura as a pillion rider, the motor bike ran out of control and tumbled down by the side of the road thereby causing grievous injuries on the deceased. He succumbed to his juries on the next day at Manughat Primary Hospital. He was said to be 32 years old at the time of the accident and carrying on the business of fruits in the Manughat market. He is also said to be running a poultry farm and doing cultivation work and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as income. He is survived by his wife (the respondent No.1), his minor son (the respondent No.2) and his parents (the respondent 3 and 4), who jointly filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.22,95,000/-. It may be noted that the police also registered Dhuma Chara P.S. Case No.DMC/11/2011 dated 14-11-2011 U/s 279/304 IPC. The outcome of the police case is not brought to the notice of this Court.

3. The owner of the motor bike was impleaded as the Opposite Party No.1, while the National Insurance Company was impleaded as the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 (the appellant herein). The respondent No.1 contested the claim petition and filed his written statement denying any negligence in the vehicular accident; the bike, while riding over a speed breaker, jumped and tumbled on the road. This, according to the respondent No.1, resulted in the death of the deceased, who was a pillion rider. The respondent No.1 further pointed out that his bike was insured with the appellant and if compensation was to be paid, it was the liability of the appellant to satisfy the award. The appellant-insurer also resisted the claim petition and filed its written statement. The insurer denied that claim of the claimant-respondents and asserted that no accident took place involving the motor bike of the respondent No.1 and that the FIR itself disclosed that the deceased did not die in a motor accident, but he was alleged to have been murdered, as alleged by his father, and golden chain, mobile, etc. of the deceased were stolen. The appellant, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. On the basis of the claim petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination :

1. Whether the deceased Nirmal Das died in a vehicular accident which took place on 13-11-2011 at about 9/10 PM at Ruaza Paras on Dhumachara Manu Road under PS Dhumachara due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-01-B-8171 (Hero Honda Glammer) by its rider?

2. Whether the claimant-petitioners are entitled to have any compensation, if so, to what extent and who shall be held liable to pay the same?

At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment.

5. Since the main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the claimant-respondents failed to prove that there was no rash and negligent driving of the bike by the respondent No.1 and since the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant is not liable to satisfy the award, I will straightaway refer to the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.1:

“5. …….… Therafter, after conducting investigation police submitted charge sheet against the rider Sarat Mohan Tripura of the offending vehicle U/s 279/304-A IPC since it was accidental death. Further, from the PM report, it also reveals that death