ORDER

09-01-2024 Heard Mr. PJ Phukan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 Insurance Company.

2. The appellant as claimant filed a case vide MAC Case No.21/1999 before the learned Member, MACT, Sivasagar for granting of suitable compensation on account of the death of her husband Amir Ali, who died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 02.02.1999 near Damani Petrol Pump, Sivasagar Town over National Highway No.37 at around 7.30 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of a driver of a vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No.AMS-

6085.

3. In connection with the aforesaid accident a case was registered vide Sivasagar P.S Case No.49/1999 under Sections 279/427/304(A)IPC and after completion of the investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer also submitted charge sheet against the drive of the alleged offending vehicle.

4. Subsequently, the appellant/claimant moved a claim petition before the Court of MACT, Sivasagar claiming compensation amounting to Rs.5,75,000/- and the opposite parties i.e. the concerned owner and driver of the vehicle as well as the Insurer of the vehicle i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., also filed their written statements in response to the said MAC Case No.21/1999. The learned Member MACT, Sivasagar vide impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2008 while dismissing the petition also stated that the claimant is not entitled to get compensation from the opposite party No.1, 2 and 3 i.e. the owner, driver and insurer of the alleged offending vehicle.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated

06.02.2008, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant Mr. PJ Phukan has submitted that once the FIR has been registered against a negligent driver and even a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., has been presented by the Investigating Agency to the competent court, no further proof is required in summary proceedings like MAC cases as to the negligence of the driver of an offending vehicle, as such the Tribunal had erred in law in holding that the factum of the accident having taken place with the truck driver i.e., by respondent No.2 has not been proved.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the deposition of PW-2 has not been relied upon by the Tribunal, though it has been clearly stated in the impugned judgment and order that the offending truck suddenly hit the bicycle of the deceased in the process of turning. He could notice the number of the truck which was AMS-6085. It is also submitted that the strict proof of evidence will not apply and the court can look into evidence without being exhibited as required in civil suits. As such, the learned Member, MACT, Sivasagar ought to have considered this aspect on the basis of law and other relevant facts.

8. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in motor accident claims cases, the evidence should not be scrutinized in the manner as it is done in a civil suit or a criminal case as it is summary enquiry, if there is some evidence to arrive at the finding that itself is sufficient. Learned counsel for the appellant also admitted that on enquiry, he came to know that the respondent No.2 i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle was eventually acquitted by the trial court in the criminal case that he was facing. But the parameters of acquittal in a criminal case cannot be read into summary proceedings in another case.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the PW-3, the Investigating Officer (in criminal case) admitted that Siddique Ali (PW-2) was not examined by him during investigation of the criminal case nor the said person was cited as a witness in the said case. PW-3 also admitted that he did not disclose the source of getting the registration number of the offending truck.

He also denied that he could not get any definite information that the