HELEN GHOSH Vs. BABUL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the award of learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala dated 31/08/1984 whereby claim petition was dismissed awarding no compensation for the damage caused to one heifer belonging to the appellant Smt Helen Ghosh.

(2.) The case of the appellant, shortly put, is that on 31-5-1983 at about 8 p.m. when her one heifer was grazing on the kutcha road situate in front of her residence at Haimara Tilla, the vehicle No. TRS 477 belonging to one Shri Babul Roy and Bankim Chakraborty was passing along that road at a high speed and while it was passing in front of the residence of appellant the vehicle knocked down the heifer causing grievous injuries to it. The heifer was removed to Veterinary Hospital for treatment but after about 2 months the heifer died. In the meantime, the driver-cum-caretaker of the vehicle Shri Saroj Bhowmik agreed to pay the price of a similar heifer but neither the owner nor the driver cum-caretaker paid any money towards compensation to the appellant. The appellant also approached the insurer but the insurer did not agree to compensate. It is stated that the price of such heifer was Rs. 5,000.00 at that time. The appellant, therefore, presented a claim petition under S. 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 5,100.00 due to the death of her heifer on account of motor accident which took place on 31-5-1983 at Haimara Tilla, Agartala.

(3.) The owners Shri Babul Roy and Bankim Chakraborty and driver-cum-caretaker Shri Saroj Bhowmik resisted the claim petition by filing a joint written statement wherein they, inter alia, contended that their vehicle was not involved in the accident as alleged in the claim petition and as such this claim petition under S. 110A of the Act was not maintainable against them. It was also pleaded that such an application under S. 110A of the Act was maintainable only against the death or injuries to human being and not to animals. It was further averred that at the relevant time the vehicle was insured with Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. and the policy covered the risk. So, the answering respondents are not liable to pay any compensation for such damage.