JYOTILAL BISWAS, S/O HARI MOHAN BISWAS Vs. SAILENDRA DEBNATH, S/O LATE AGHORE CHANDRA DEBNATH; BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LIMITED; PRADIP BISWAS, S/O HARI MOHAN BISWAS; BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this appeal, the claimant Jyotilal Biswas has claimed enhancement of compensation on two grounds. Firstly, that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in holding the contributory negligence of the claimant to be 50% and secondly, that the amount of compensation awarded is very much on the lower side.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that on 21-10-2007, at about 6-30 a.m., the petitioner was driving motor cycle bearing registration No.TR-01-F-8575. He was driving from Khowai to Teliamura. At a place called Bagan Bazar, there was a head on collision between this motor cycle and truck No.TR-01-E-1578 owned by Sri Sailendra Debnath and insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The claimant filed the claim petition alleging that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. The truck owner filed a reply stating that the accident had taken place due to the sole negligence of the claimant himself. The parties led evidence. The learned trial Court did not discuss the evidence of the parties, but only on the basis of the Charge-sheet in the criminal case came to the conclusion that both of them were equally responsible for the accident. ]

(3.) I am clearly of the view that documents which are not produced and exhibited cannot be read while disposing of motor accident claim cases. The FIR has been proved on record. The FIR was exhibited along with the written complaint. The same is Exhibit-1 series. The FIR was registered on the basis of a written complaint of one Sri Tapan Purakayastha in which it is stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers. This document has been filed by the claimant himself. Once the claimant has relied upon this document, the same can be read in evidence. However, as far as the Charge-sheet is concerned, that cannot be read in evidence. The claimant appeared in the witness box and filed his affidavit in examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, he was asked whether he had a driving license. He stated that he had a driving license, but could not produce it since he had lost it. He also stated that he had not brought any copy of the driving license from the office of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. In cross-examination, he also stated that he had not lodged any report with the police station with regard to the loss of his driving license. In view of this evidence, it appears to me that the claimant did not have a valid driving license and he is making a false claim with regard to the driving license because if he had a driving license, there was nothing which prevented him from obtaining a duplicate of his driving license from the office of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and producing it before the Tribunal. What to talk about the Tribunal, though this appeal has been pending for the last six years, no effort has been made to produce a copy of the driving license before this Court also. Therefore, it is apparent that he did not have a driving license.