ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ISMAIL MIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has called in question validity and correctness of the judgment dated 5. 8. 2004 in T. S. (MAC) No. 107 of 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. By that judgment the said tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,23,000/- (Rupees two lakhs twenty three thousands) with interest towards compensation for the death of one Haran Miah on 11. 2. 2000 due to the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident on 11. 6. 1998. The short question falling for consideration of this court is whether a award of compensation for a death, which could not be satisfactorily proved to be the result of a motor accident, can be interfered with in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the deceased Haran Miah was the driver of a Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. TRT-2522. On 11. 6. 1998 he was driving the three-wheeler with passengers inside it from Agartala town to G. B. Hospital. At a place on the way near Hindi school a Flat car was coming from the opposite direction. The two vehicles collided allegedly due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Flat Car. Haran Miah allegedly sustained serious injuries. He was under treatment in the G. B. Hospital from 11. 6. 1998 to 17. 6. 1998, for a period of seven days only. He was thereafter brought home. It is claimed that he was under homeopathy treatment for a long period. On 11. 2. 2000, after a period of more than one year eight months, Haran Miah died allegedly due to the injuries sustained by him in the said motor accident. No post mortem report was done to detect the cause of the death. Except the statement of a homeopathy practitioner no other oral or documentary evidence could be adduced to establish the nature of the injuries immediately after accident and during the long period of more than one year eight months or whether the death was at all resulted from the said injuries. Thus, the accident and involvement of the vehicle though admitted and proved, question loomed large about the nature of the injuries, which required only seven days' treatment in the G. B. Hospital. The learned tribunal has, however, made attempt to answer this question from a broader perspective, injecting humanitarian consideration without insisting for strict proof thereof.

(3.) THE homeopathy practitioner, who treated the deceased for a long time, stated in his deposition that due to the injuries the deceased was in-capable to moving. The family was in such abject poverty that adequate treatment could not be provided to the victim. Considering that the provisions of awarding compensation in the Motor Vehicle Act is a social welfare legislation, which does not contemplate strict proof like a criminal case, the learned tribunal felt inclined to consider the larger canvas of social security aspect of the case in the death of a young body of 22 years only who was the sole bread earner of the family, causing a rude blow to his parents and wife suddenly facing uncertainty and starvation. Overlooking the finer points of credible evidence to satisfactorily connect the death with the injuries sustained in the motor accident, the learned tribunal was inclined to over-value the statements of the father of the deceased and of the homeopathy practitioner weaving a thin link between the two for making the award impugned.