MANIKA SAHA Vs. RANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants to challenge the award dated 14.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.T.S.(MAC) 253 of 2013.

(2.) Brief facts are as under:

(3.) The opponents No.1 and 2 appeared before the Claims Tribunal and denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. In particular, opponent No.1, the owner of the vehicle, contended that his vehicle was not involved in the accident at all. The claimants examined the widow of the deceased whose deposition was largely relevant in the context of the events after the accident took place as also the occupation and income of the deceased. She was not an eyewitness to the accident and, therefore, had no first hand information about the involvement of the motorcycle of the opponent No.1. The claimants examined one Subrata Roy (PW-2) who claimed to be an eyewitness to the accident. The opponents No.1 and 2 both cross-examined him on the issue of involvement of the motorcycle in the accident. PW-3, Habul Deb also claimed to be an eyewitness. His deposition was also challenged by the opponents.