HIDIRAM BEWA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

(2.) Both the two appeals are taken up for hearing analogously.

(3.) The appeal being F. M. A. No. 1582 of 2003 is an appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 29th day of January, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Additional District Judge), 1st Court, Malda in M. A. C. Case No. 94 of 1999 arose out of an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the appeal being F. M. A. No. 1583 of 2003 is an appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 29th day of January, 2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Additional District Judge), 1st Court, Matda in M. A. C. Case No. 95 of 1999 arose out of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act both were dismissed on two-fold grounds: Firstly, that the applicant who is the mother of the victim who breathed last in the accident as alleged could not prove the fact that due to accident her daughter breathed last and that too with reference to the offending vehicle as it is the finding of the learned Tribunal below that no documents relating to the unnatural death case and/or records of the police case were produced and Secondly, on the ground that in view of the admission in the cross- examination by the claimant herself, the mother of the victim, that her daughter left behind two children and her husband, non-implication of them as parties in this proceeding either as claimants or as the opposite parties of the claim application had made the application as filed non-maintainable.