KABITA HALDER Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 9th November, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Eleventh Court of Additional District Judge, Alipore, in M.A.C. Case No. 67 of 2006 thereby dismissing the claim-application on the simple ground that there was a wrong statement made in paragraph 23 of the claim-application and such wrong statement had not been rectified by way of amendment.

(2.) According to the appellants, on 17th January, 2002 the victim, namely, one Sripati Haider, the predecessor- in- interest of the appellants, died of an accident. He was travelling in a bus which due to rash and negligent driving overturned resulting in his death. According to the claimants, Sripati Haider was aged 45 years and used to earn Rs. 4,000/- a month by selling vegetables. The widow of the victim who was a co-passenger of her husband in the said bus at the time of accident appeared as P.W. 1 and proved the incident. The statement of P.W.1 was also corroborated by P.W.2. It appears that F.I.R. was marked as Exbt. 1 which revealed that a case under Sections 279/338/304A of the Indian Penal Code was filed against the driver of the offending vehicle. Exbt. 2 was the seizure list. Exbt. 3 was the xerox copy of the certificate of registration. Exbt. 4 was the Insurance Certificate showing that the said vehicle was insured at the relevant time with the New India Assurance Company Ltd. Exbt. 5 was the copy of the post-mortem report showing that Sripati Haider aged about 45 years died due to accidental injuries.

(3.) As indicated earlier, the learned Tribunal below held that in column 23 of the claim-application, it was mentioned that one Sambhu Nath Mondal and other persons were travelling in the offending vehicle which was involved WBLR-67 in the accident and as a result, Sambhu Nath Mondal and other persons sustained serious injuries and Sambhu Nath Mondal died on the spot. According to the Tribunal, thus, there was a clear contradiction as regards the name of the victim inasmuch as in the cause title of the application the name of Sripati Haider appeared as the victim whereas in column 23 of the application, a different name, viz. Sambhu Nath Mondal, has been mentioned.