The court emphasized the interpretation of 'accident' and 'negligence' and the wider connotation of 'use of vehicle' under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicle Act.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

This appeal is filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 27.05.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar, whereby and where under the learned Tribunal has disposed of the claim-application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 with nil award.

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Mr. A. Gon Chowdhury, learned counsel appears on behalf of the United India Insurance Company Limited, i.e., respondent No.2 in this appeal.

3. Heard Mr. A. Gon chowdhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

4. As I have decided to take up the matter for hearing in absence of the learned counsel for the appellants, I have very meticulously examined the records of the instant case.

5. At the very outset, Mr. Gon Chowdhury, learned counsel in his usual fairness has invited my attention to para 8 of the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. It is revealed from the findings of the learned Tribunal that the ground for not awarding any compensation in favour of the claimants in the instant case is that the police report reveals that the accident took place due to mechanical disorder for which neither the owner nor the Insurance Company be held liable. According to me, this is an unexpected and absurd proposition as held by the learned Tribunal.

6. However, it leads me to take note of the present case. Briefly stated, that on 17.03.2016 Jagadish Tripura being a labourer along with another went to 32 KM border working site from Bakcherra Coastal Brick Field by vehicle bearing No. TR.01D-1600 (Truck) loaded with bricks through Chailengta-Chamanu road and while at about 11.30/11.45 hours the vehicle reached at Durgacherra near Assambasti when the driver of the vehicle lost his control and met with the accident and ultimately the vehicle fell down into a lunga resulting the death of Jagadish Tripura on the spot due to grievous injuries he suffered. It is stated in the claim-application that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent act and the driving of the driver of the vehicle No. TR.01D-1600(Truck).

7. On the basis of the pleadings and materials on record submitted by the respective parties the learned Tribunal has formed the following issues:

(i) Whether the deceased Jagadish Tripura expired on spot on 17.03.2016 at about 11.30/11.45 hours at Assambasti (Durgacherra) on Chailengta to Chamanu road under Chailengta PS arising out of motor accident involving TR 01D 1600 (Truck) due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing no. TR 01D 1600 (Truck)?

(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation for the death of Jagadish Tripura, if so, what would be the quantum of compensation and who is/are liable to make payment of the same?

8. The learned Tribunal while dealing with the first issue has arrived at a finding that the accident took place due to mechanical disorder as a result of steering lock and the police report does not support rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver. On the basis of this finding the Tribunal has rejected the claim application of the claimants.

9. If this proposition of the learned member of the Tribunal is accepted, then, it will lead to opening of Pandora’s box to thwart the legitimate claims of the legitimate victims/claimants. No Court or Tribunal should allow this kind of approach in deciding any of the cases. This is wholly an irrational and illogical/cavalier approach of the learned Tribunal in deciding such sensitive issue. I am constrained to observe that the learned Member of the Tribunal has miserably misconstrued the meaning of the term “accident”.

10. The word “accident” has not been defined in the Motor Accident Act, 1988. The Courts or Tribunal has to go considering the meaning of the “accident” at its own parlance. In Sakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti v. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and anr. reported in AIR 2007 SC 248,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document