JYOTI PODDAR Vs. GOUKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the award dated 9th April, 1996 in Claim Case No. 70/94 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg.

(2.) The facts briefly are that Dulal Poddar was travelling in the scooter on 28th December, 1992 from Chhawani Police Station, Power House on Nandini Road, Bhilai at about 6.30 in the evening. A truck bearing registration No. M.B.K, 7110 came from the opposite direction, first hit another truck bearing registration No. M.P.T. 8859 and thereafter hit Dulal Poddar. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Dulal Poddar suffered injuries. He was brought to the hospital where he succumbed. On 29th December, 1992 appellant No. 1, his wife, appellants 2 and 3, his children and appellant No. 4 his mother, filed the aforesaid claims case before the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg. On the basis of the evidence adduced, the Tribunal determined the quantum of compensation to be payable on account of the accident at Rs. 3,60,000 (Rs. three lacs sixty thousand only) but held in the impugned award that the accident was caused on account of the negligence of Dula Poddar and accordingly dismissed the claim of the appellants. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it would be clear from the evidence of Bablu Manjhi (AW 2) who was examined on behalf of the claimants that the truck M.B.K. 7110 first hit the standing truck and hit Dulal Poddar who was coming from the opposite direction on his left hand side. He further submitted that this will be clear from the First Information Report (Ext. P-1) in which Gokaran (AW 5) the driver of truck No. M.B.K. 7110 has himself stated that he first hit the standing truck M.P.T. 8859 and then hit the scooter which was coming from the opposite direction and as a result of the accident the Scooter rider suffered injuries and for this reason he lodged the First Information Report (Ext. P-1) Mr. Ghosh further submitted that on this evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident was on account of the fault of Dulal Poddar was factually incorrect.