JYOTISH CHAKMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are being decided by a common Judgment. The claimant Jyotish Chakma filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of injuries received in a motor vehicle accident. According to the appellant, on 02.03.1993 he along with other passengers was going towards Chailengta from Manu in an auto rickshaw. At a place called Madhab Chandrapara, Jeep No. TRG -136 came from the opposite side and dashed the auto rickshaw. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep vehicle. The claim petition was filed more than 9 years later in the year 2002. The State took the defence that on the date of accident, it was not the owner of the vehicle Jeep bearing No. TRG -136 and it was also alleged that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw.

(2.) THE learned Tribunal relied upon an earlier award passed in T.S. (MAC) 19 of 1994 dated 30.09.1999 wherein the Tribunal held that the drivers of both the vehicles were equally responsible. According to the claimant, as a result of the injury received he became visually disabled to the extent of 30%. He lost vision of right eye to the extent of 30%. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed the compensation at Rs. 80,000/ - and held both the State as well as the auto rickshaw driver liable to pay the amount in equal shares. The claimant Sri Jyotish Chakma has filed MAC Appeal No. 31 of 2007 claiming enhanced compensation whereas the State has filed MAC Appeal No. 105 of 2007 in which it is urged that the vehicle had been condemned and sold by the State prior to the accident and hence the State is not liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) I have been informed by Sri S. Chakraborty that the said award was not challenged by the State probably because the State was proceeded against ex parte. However, after execution proceedings were filed, a petition was filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India was filed in this Court challenging the award, but the same was dismissed. Therefore, the award has attained finality and the award can be relied upon for the purposes of deciding the issues of negligence and liability of the State. Accordingly, the appeal of the State is without merit and hence, dismissed.