The importance of strict proof of facts in accordance with the Evidence Act and the responsibility of the Tribunal to ensure just compensation and to detect and reject false claim petitions.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13-5-2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura in T.S.(MAC) No. 387 of 2012 dismissing the claim petition.

2. The material facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellant, are that she is the mother of the deceased Makhan Sarkar and that on the midnight of 30/31-1-2012, the deceased (Makhan Sarkar) along with his relative, Nikhil Choudhury, were returning to their house from Charipara by a motor bike bearing registration No. TR-01-C-5943 after attending a party driven by the said Nikhil Choudhury. On reaching Drop Gate Traffic Point, Nikhil Choudhury stopped the bike to attend to nature’s call. When the deceased got down from the motor bike to approach the road side, an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. TR-01-A-3597, coming from the opposite direction at a high speed dashed against him. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his head. He was then taken to AGMC & GBP Hospital and got him admitted there. Considering his serious conditions, he was referred and taken to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, but due to non-availability of bed, he had to be admitted to Desun Hospital and Heart Institute, Kolkata on 1-2-2012. He was operated upon the same day 2/3 times but he succumbed to his injuries on 2-2-2012. Post mortem examination was conducted on his dead body, which was taken to Agartala on 4-2-2012. He was 29 years old at the time of death and used to earn an income Rs. 15,000/- per month as a businessman dealing with garments at Bamutia Bazaar. The appellant, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 48,17,000/- for the death of her son.

3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent No. 1 (owner of the motor bike) by filing his written statement. He admitted the accident, but denied that his driver, who drove his auto-rickshaw, was guilty of rash and negligent driving. His case is that when the auto-rickshaw was just crossing Drop Gate Traffic Point, a motor bike coming from the opposite direction suddenly stopped near the said Traffic Point. At that time the pillion rider, got down from the bike and tried to cross the road running without giving any signal, which made his driver lost control and, in the process, hit the pillion driver first and thence the motor bike. According to the respondent No. 1, the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence of the victim also. It is also pleaded by the answering respondent that the auto-rickshaw was insured with the respondent No. 2 and had valid documents at the time of the accident and the respondent No. 2 was, therefore, liable to satisfy any liability for the accident and not him. The respondent No. 2 contested the claim petition and filed its written statement. It disputed the claims of the claimant and denied any liability in the accident. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issued:

1. Did the deceased sustain any injury on 31-01-12 at about 0025 hours near Drop Gate Traffic Point, Agartala in a road traffic accident sustaining grievous injuries resulting in his death on 1-2-2012 at CNMC and Hospital, Kolkata due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the auto-rickshaw bearing No. TR-01-A-3597?

2. Is the claimant entitled to be compensated under the provisions of the MV Act, 1988? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?

4. To establish her claim, the appellant examined herself and the said Nikhil Choudhury (PW-2) and exhibited documents relating to police case (Exbt.1 series), treatment papers, post mortem report, etc. From the side of the insurer, the Deputy Manager was examined while documents relating to police case, namely, Exbt. A series, were exhibited. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition. Aggrieved by this, this appeal has been preferred.

5. Unfolding his submissions, Mr. S. Lodh, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the Tribunal co