RINA DAS SAHA Vs. BISWAJIT PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TRAPPINGS of neither Title Suit nor a Sessions Trial is available in a Claim Petition under Section 168 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. Imbibed by this sense we would be required to consider the prayer made in Appeal which was dismissed on the circumstance that there was variance between the Post Mortem Report and the name of the daughter of the Appellant who was the victim of the case.

(2.) IT appears that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur (Dist. Uttar Dinajpur) in MAC Case No. 94 of 2007 by its Judgment and Order under Appeal on 28.11.2008 dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the Appellants hereinabove mainly on the ground that barring the only claim of P.W.1 (the Appellant) who is not the witness to the occurrence there was no documentary proof. This has persuaded the Appellants to prefer this Appeal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Appeal as the name of the daughter of the Appellants has been rectified subsequently by Professor Saibal Gupta, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine Department, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital.

(3.) IN our opinion, on the basis of a plain reading of the Judgment and Order under Appeal the learned Tribunal had proceeded in a closed manner bereft of the broad view required to be taken in this type of proceedings which are not only summary in nature but have a social impact. Shri Banerjee has placed before us the additional papers relating to the clarification made by Professor Saibal Gupta Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine Department, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital with regard to the discrepancy in the name of the deceased daughter of the Appellants and other pertaining documents including the ground of review and the order passed thereon. These are additional materials which would have been considered by us within the ambit of additional evidence to be taken under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This provision, in other words, is akin to the pari materia position of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We would be well within our power to construe these documents which have been produced by Shri Banerjee by way of incorporating them as additional evidence. For this purpose we must remember that Rule 346 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 authorises the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of a claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There cannot be any dispute in respect of the same.