MUKTA MOHAKUD Vs. J A KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the above two appeals, challenge is made to the judgment and award of the learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack dated 29th June, 1995 and as such on the prayer and consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard analogous and disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) MISC . Appeal No. 419 of 1995 is filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas Misc. Appeal No. 491 of 1995 is by the Insurance Company challenging the award. Misc. Appeal No. 419 of 1995 by the claimants was heard and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge by order dated 19.9.1996 as against which the appellants preferred A.H.O. No. 79 of 1996. The Division Bench, keeping in view the fact that Misc. Appeal No. 491 of 1995 filed by the Insurance Company is still pending consideration and in case the A.H.O. is allowed, there is likelihood of conflicting decisions, allowed the A.H.O. and remitted it back for fresh consideration along with the appeal fled by the Insurance Company, in such circumstances, both the appeals were heard.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal taking note of and on consideration of the evidence of P.W. 2, an eye witness to the accident, the evidence of the widow (P.W. 1), came to the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, who lost control and dashed the vehicle against the tree causing death of the deceased. The Tribunal has taken into consideration of the certified copy of the FIR and the copy of the Charge Sheet against the driver of the vehicle under Section 304 A, IPC, the copy of the Post mortem report (Ext. 3), to hold that the accident took place causing death of the deceased due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the trekker.