BINOD CHANDRA GOSWAMI Vs. ANANDI RAM BARUAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-10-90 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jorhat in M.A.C.T. Case No. 21/90. By the impugned order the learned tribunal held that the petitioner Binod Chandra Goswami, brother of the injured Promod Goswami not being duly authorised to make claim within the meaning of Section 166(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petition filed by him was not maintainable and accordingly rejected the claim application.

(2.) Earlier on the basis of the materials placed before the learned Tribunal, an order was passed for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 12,500.00 to the injured u/S. 140 of the M. V. Act on the principle of no fault liability.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party. Mr. Choudhury submits that although the application claiming the compensation was initially filed by the petitioner, the brother of the injured, without obtaining prior authority due to bona fide mistaken advice, however, injured is before the Court, inasmuch as, he has appointed the petitioner as his constituted attorney for prosecution of the case. As such, for the initial technical flaw, the injured may not be deprived of the compensation.