BIKASH MUNDA Vs. NARESH DEBBARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rather unusual case where the claimant(appellant herein) is claiming compensation on account of the death of his wife on the ground that he himself is responsible for the death of his wife who died due to his rash and negligent driving.

(2.) THE claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the claim petition it was alleged that the deceased Dipika Munda was the wife of the claimant. It is also mentioned in the claim petition that with regard to this incident FIR No. 11 of 2006 was registered with Jirania Police Station under Section 279/304(A) IPC.

(3.) THE claimant Bikash Munda in evidence filed his own affidavit and repeated what had been stated by him in the claim petition. He, however in cross -examination admitted that the vehicle was an auto van and he himself was driving the vehicle when the accident occurred. He also stated that he did not submit any driving licence and he has not produced any driving licence in Court. The claimant also produced certain witnesses. One Parfulla Debbarma was examined who claimed that he was working in a brick field as a skilled labourer and that Dipika Munda was also working in the brick field. According to him on that day Dipika Munda and he along with others were returning from a cultural programme and when the auto came from behind in the same direction at a very high speed the driver of the vehicle dashed against the victim Dipika Munda. Though he stated that Dipika Munda was working in the same brick field he has not named the brick field nor has he named the owner of the brick field.