CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TRIPURA TRIBAL ARREARS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL (TTAADC) Vs. SISHUPATI REANG; DIPALI RANI TRIPURA (REANG); JEREMIN REANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 25th August, 2015 I received a complaint with regard to the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted in execution proceedings numbered as Civil Misc. No.03 of 2013 filed under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for realization of the awarded amount. After examining the record of the execution proceedings I had passed a detailed order on 26th August, 2015.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed by the mother, widow and minor son of late Shri Jitendra Reang under Section 166 of the Act. This claim petition was filed against the Chief Executive Officer of the Tripura Tribal Arrears Autonomous District Council (TTAADC for short) as well as the State of Tripura represented by the Chief Secretary. The allegation in the claim petition was that the deceased was employed with the TTAADC as Sub-Divisional Development Officer. On the ill-fated day, he himself drove Jeep No.TRA-2573 which met with an accident. The allegation in the claim petition was that the driver lost control over the steering and the vehicle turn turtle and fell by the side of the road. The driver was none else but the deceased himself namely, Jitendra Reang. He, unfortunately suffered serious injuries in the accident and died as a result thereof.

(3.) In the claim petition there was no allegation that there was any sudden mechanical breakdown on the vehicle. In fact, the claim petition was drafted in a roundabout manner in which it was mentioned that the deceased had boarded the vehicle and the accident occurred because of the fact that the driver lost control of the vehicle. There was no allegation of mechanical breakdown. The Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) made out a new case for the petitioners while passing the award and though he came to the conclusion that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle, he held that since there was failure of brakes, the owner of the vehicle was responsible for the accident.