In motor accident compensation claims, a police charge-sheet is sufficient evidence of a vehicle's involvement if it inspires confidence. An insurer holding leave under Section 170 failing to summon the driver or owner to rebut such evidence cannot defeat a legitimate claim by pleading procedural technicalities.

Judgment :

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.

1.The appellants before this Court were claimants in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 19th day of December 2014 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 5^th Court, Burdwan in MAC Case No-37/23.

2. The case of the appellants/claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:-

3. On 03-03-2013 at about 1.15 hrs while victim a constable of Police then attached to Jamalpur P.S. was engaged to duty on foot patrolling along with his other colleague one Maruti Car being No. WNW-3755 which was from Burdwan side towards Kolkata side on NH-2 with high speed hit the victim from his back side resulting severe injuries on his person and victim was admitted in Burdwan Hospital where he died ultimately. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle being no. WNW-3755. The victim/deceased was the only earning member of the family and the petitioners solely depended upon him. Due to sudden death of the victim the claimants are in deep financial trouble to maintain their family.

4. Pursuant to the filing of this case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner although filed written statement but did not contest the case. Opposite Party Insurance Company filed written statement and petition u/s-170 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and contested the case.

5. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence adduced and upon hearing the Learned Advocates was pleased to dismiss the claim case on contest against opposite party National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ex-parte against opposite party vehicle owner.

6. The appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal.

7. Heard Learned Advocate for the appellants claimants and Learned Advocate for the respondent no-1/Insurance Company perused the evidence adduced and materials on record.

8. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in not relying upon the evidence of P.W. 2. Sri Dharmendra Mondal charge sheet witness. Learned Advocate further submits that the vehicle owner is cited as charge sheet witness thus the evidence ought to have been relied upon. Learned Advocate also submits that the Insurance Company upon obtaining leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ought to have examined the driver of offending vehicle in the event there was some doubt. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate that Motor Vehicle Claim legislation being a beneficial legislation Learned Trial Judge ought not to have dismissed the case.

9. Learned Advocate for the respondent no-1 Insurance Company Submits that the FIR maker did not mention the model of vehicle, although he was present when accident took place. Learned Advocate further submits that the accident took place on 03-03-2013 and the vehicle was seized from owner of vehicle on 23-05-2013, thus involvement of vehicle is disputed. Learned Advocate also submits that there is inconsistency between evidence of P.W. 2 and Written Complaint thus the Learned Trial Judge rightly rejected the claim case.

10. The following Judicial decisions were relied upon by the Learned Advocates:-

Sithara