PADU BOWA Vs. MD. SALIM KHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges the judgment of the learned Second Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Northern Division, Sambalpur (referred to hereinafter as the Tribunal) refusing to award any compensation to her for the death of her son in an accident.

(2.) One Dukhuram Majhi, the son of the present appellant, un-disputedly lost his life on 16.12.1981 on account of an accident caused by a truck bearing registration No. OHJ 1698. The deceased was working as a helper in the truck. The owner of the vehicle respondent No. 1 accepted the factum accident. He, however, stated that the same was not due to rash and negligent act, but was the result of mechanical failure. It is interesting to find that two claim applications were filed, one by the present appellant and the other by Suna Majhi, the brother of the deceased. Relying on the statement of the brother to the effect that the mother was not depending on the deceased, the prayer for compensation was refused. The Tribunal also held that there was no positive material to show that the accident was the out-come of negligent driving. For coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the final report submitted in a criminal case relating to the accident.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to pass any award in favour of the appellant solely depending on the statement of the other claimant. According to him, the very fact that a separate claim petition was filed amply proves the oblique motive for which it was filed, and therefore, without any effective cross-examination of the claimant no adverse inference should have been drawn against the claimant-appellant by the Tribunal. It has also been submitted that even if the mechanical failure was the cause of accident, no evidence was led by the owner to show that adequate care and caution was taken before the vehicle was put on the road. The learned counsel for the insurer submits that in view of categorical statement of the claimant in the other connected claim petition about non-dependence, there is no scope for taking a different view in the matter.