Advocates:
['FARUK MIAH', '', 'SAMAR DAS', 'Mr P GAUTAM', '', 'Mr S DEBNATH', 'Mr S K PATARI', 'Mr R G CHAKRABORTY']

Page 1 of 8

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

MAC APP. No.05/2019

1. Smti. Maha Maya Debbarma, W/O. Santosh Debbarma,

2. Sri Santosh Debbarma, S/O. Lt. Bikram Debbarma,

Both are residents of Word No- 3, Mungia Kami School, Jarilong

Bari, Teliamura, Dist- Khowai.

----Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Sri Himu Chandra Dey, S/O. Birendra Kr. Dey, Resident of West

Ratacherra, Kumarghat, Unokoti Tripura, Pin-799264. (Owner of offending

vehicle bearing no. TR-02-1290, (BUS).

2. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., 42,

Akhawara Road, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin- 799001. (Insurer of offending

vehicle bearing no. TR-02-1290, (BUS).

-----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Faruk Miah, Advocate.

For Respondent(s)

: Mr. P. Gautam, Advocate.

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI

Date of hearing and judgment : 19^th February, 2021.

Whether fit for reporting

: NO.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

This appeal is filed by the original claimants to challenge an

award dated 14.11.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) No.268 of 2016.

Page 2 of 8

2.

Brief facts are as under:

On 07.03.2016 one Suman Debbarma aged about 19 years, met

with a fatal vehicular accident in which a bus insured by the respondent

No.2 insurance company was involved. The deceased was unmarried. His

parents thereupon filed a claim petition against the owner and insurer of the

vehicle involved in the accident and claimed compensation of

Rs.34,23,000/-. According to them, the accident occurred on account of rash

and negligent driving of the bus. The claimants examined the mother of the

deceased as PW-1 and one Swapan Das who claimed to be an eyewitness as

PW-2. The Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that

the deceased himself was negligent in driving his motorcycle which led to

the accident and, therefore, his parents cannot claim any compensation from

the owner or the insurer of the bus. In the process, the Tribunal placed heavy

reliance on a First Information Report filed by one Ratan Sarkar before the

Teliamura Police Station on 07.03.2016 in which the informant had stated

that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of

the motorcycle by the deceased. According to the informant, he was going

on a bicycle when the motorcyclist first hit him and thereafter his vehicle

dashed with a bus. The Tribunal relied on the fact that upon completion of

the investigation the police had concluded that the deceased was negligent in

Page 3 of 8

causing the accident. Noticing that the claim petition was based on fault

liability the entire claim petition was dismissed.

3.

Appearing for the appellants learned counsel Mr. Faruk Miah

submitted that the Tribunal erred in placing reliance on the contents of the

F.I.R. and police investigation and in the process discarded reliable evidence

of eyewitness. He submitted that in motor accident cases the Courts do not

insist on strict proof of negligence. He relied on a decision of learned Single

Judge of this Court in case of Kalpana Majumder and ors. vrs. Sankar

Debnath and anr. reported in (2017) 2 TLR 74 in which it was observed

that in absence of examining the relevant witnesses, police report cannot be

relied upon to discard the eyewitness accounts. Counsel also relied on a

decision of Supreme Court in case of Parmeshwari vrs. Amir Chand & ors.

reported in AIR 2011 SC 1504 in which it was observed as under:

“12. We are constrained to repeat our observation that the

total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not

sensitized enough to appreciate the plight of the victim. The

other so-called reason in the High Court's order was that as

the claim petition was filed after four months of the accident,

the same is "a device to grab m