SANJU NAYAK Vs. AMAL DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed challenging the legality and validity of the judgment dated 29.08.2009 passed by the 1 st Addl. District Judge -cum -1 st MACT, Cuttack in MAC No.472 of 2005, wherein the learned Tribunal held that the death of the deceased occurred due to contributory negligence of both the parties.

(2.) THE case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that on 16.05.2005 at about 5 A.M. on NH 5 near New Rathia Dhaba, while the deceased was taking tea, a truck bearing registration No.WB -33 -7723 coming from Chandikhol towards Jaraka side in a rash and negligentmanner dashed against the deceased. As a result, the deceased died at the spot and then the post mortem examination was conducted over the dead body at the District Headquarters Hospital, Jajpur. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged before the Dharmasala Police Station and Dharmasala P.S. Case No.134 of 2005 was registered. After investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending truck. It was the specific allegation of the claimants that the accident was an outcome of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. They have also pleaded that the deceased was a driver by profession and he was earning Rs.4,000/ - per month during the relevant time. With these averments, the claimants filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ - (rupees four lakhs).

(3.) THE owner of the offending vehicle has not filed written statement before the learned Tribunal but Insurance company has contested the above claim by stating that the claimants should prove the insurance policy, MVI Report, documents of the G.R. Case and the DL of the driver of the offending vehicle during the relevant time. The further case of the Insurance Company was that the deceased was driving an Auto bearing registration No.OR -05 -S -6696 which was going from Bhubaneswar to Bhadrak and the offending truck coming from Jaraka to Chandikhol dashed against the Auto. The specific claim of the Insurance Company was that it is a head on collusion of both the vehicles. The owner of the Auto though was a necessary party, 2he had not been impleaded as a party by the claimants because the owner of the Auto had no valid and effective Driving Licence. The owner of the truck also did not have valid documents. Further case of the Insurance Company was that the amount of compensation claimed is high and excessive.