SUKULU MAJHI Vs. SUKANTA KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the Judgment/award dated 15.07.1993 passed by the Learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balasore in Misc.Case No. 23/46(C) of 1990/89, the claimant/Appellants, who are father, mother, sons and daughter of the deceased Rabindra Majhi, have filed this appeal. The deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident caused on a public road on 10.01.1989 at about 7.30 A.M., due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (truck) bearing Registration No. ORB 5383. In their claim petition, the claimant/Appellants had claimed Rs. 1,00,000/ - as compensation.

(2.) THE case of the Appellants, in short, is that due to the above said accident, the deceased initially sustained multiple injuries on his person and was hospitalized in Balasore Headquarters Hospital on the very same date of the accident i.e. 10.01.1989 and remained there under -treatment till 12.01.1989 as an indoor patient. Since the condition of the injured deteriorated and became serious, the treating Doctor advised to shift him to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for further treatment. The claimant/Appellants, who are the persons below poverty line, took the injured to their home for the purpose of arranging funds required for the treatment. Since they are poor persons it was difficult on their part to arrange required funds immediately and before they could arrange the money to remove the injured to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital at Cuttack for his treatment, the injured succumbed to the injuries on 14.01.1989 i.e. two days after he was discharged from the Balasore Headquarters Hospital. Hence the claimant/Appellants filed the claim application claiming Rs. 1,00,000/ - as compensation for the death caused to the injured due to the injury caused in the said motor vehicle accident on a public road.

(3.) LEARNED Tribunal taking into consideration all the facts and materials as well as both oral and documentary evidence available on record, held that 'since the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased and the version of P. W.1 in the FIR to the police that the deceased was cured after treatment and was brought home from hospital on 12.01.1989 taken together, leads to a conclusive inference that the death of the deceased was due to some other reasons other than the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. As such, the deceased cannot be said to have died due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question.' With the above observations, Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the Claimant/Appellants.