PURNIMA PRADHAN Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant appellant no.1 was the widow, the appellant nos.2, and 4 were the children and appellant no.5 was the mother of the victim who died in the unfortunate incident. The appellants claimed that he was a self-employed person working as rickshaw puller earning rupees three thousand per month. The appellants alleged that the victim was hit and run over by a trekker bearing registration no.W.B. 33/8920. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the claimants could not prove the involvement of the subject vehicle. Hence, the respondent Insurance Company being the insurer of the subject vehicle did not have any liability.

(2.) The records would depict, on April 3, 2007 at 5 a.m. Mohoranjan Pradhan, the victim was taking tea standing in front of the tea stall of Surendranath Dutta (PW-4) when a trekker bearing no.W.B.33/8920 came at a high speed from Sautia towards Mohanpur in the district of Paschim Midnapur. The vehicle was being run with high speed and in rash and negligent way. The driver lost control and dashed the victim in front of the tea stall. The passengers of the offending trekker and the local people stopped the trekker and tried to carry the deceased by the same vehicle to the Hospital. However, the driver fled away with the said vehicle. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre, then to Medinipur Medical College and subsequently, to N.R.S. Medical College where he breathed his last on the next day. One Sisir Kumar Nandy claiming to be an eye-witness lodged a complaint on the next day with Mohanpur Police Station which was registered as P.S. Case No.16/2007. However, in the complaint, he did not mention the number of the trekker. In his affidavit-evidence he asserted that subject vehicle was not involved. Later, it transpired that he was maternal uncle of the owner of the trekker. The owner of the trekker Asit Dey Opposite Party witness no.1admitted in his deposition that Sisir was his maternal uncle.

(3.) The appellant no.1, the widow was not present at the time of accident. She was rustic lady and depended on the hearse evidence of the ocular witnesses. It transpired that Sisir was also related to the deceased. Anuradha Dutta (PW-2) also witnessed the accident. She was travelling by the subject trekker. She asked the driver to stop who ignored such caution and fled away. In cross-examination, she vividly described the incident.