INDIRA BAHETI Vs. AMIT KUMAR NAHATA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9.7.99 passed by the Member, MAC Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 127/97. A claim case was filed by the widow of the deceased claiming an amount of Rs.4,92,000/-. The learned member rejected the claim holding as follows:

(2.) A claim petition cannot be thrown out in the manner as done by the tribunal. This is a beneficial piece of legislation and for the good of the society and that aspect of the matter must be borne in mind by the Tribunal. If any authority is required for this proposition of law, one may have a look at AIR V980SC 1354 (N.K.V. Bors. (P) Ltd. Karummai Amal and Ors) where the Supreme Court pointed out that a claim should not be thrown out by resorting to technicalities. If the case is false of course of question will be altogether different. But that is what has been done by the Tribunal. If in the post-mortem a particular form is not filed up by the Civil Surgeon for that no fault can be found with the claimant and when the original post-mortem report is not given to the claimant what the poor claimant can do. The poor claimant obtained the photocopy of the post-mortem report and produced it. It is not the finding of the tribunal that the post-mortem report is a false one. The post-mortem report was duly certified by the police authority to be true copy and inspite of it that was not accepted by the Tribunal.

(3.) Next comes to the applicability of Section 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act Section 158(6) was inserted by the amendment with effect from 14.11.34 and it was inserted by the Legislature for the benefit of the victim of accidental death and not to use as a handle or tool or weapon to throw out a claim, but that is what was done by the learned tribunal.