SHAILA BALA GHOSH Vs. NITAI CH SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 10.12.1996 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura. Agartala in Misc. 46 (MAC) of 1996. By the said order the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has denied the relief to the claimant-petitioners in the said claim case under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and has held that the said may be granted if the claimants satisfy the Court in the original suit T.S. (MAC) 179/1996 that the death of Baikuntha Ghosh on 7,1.1996 was due to road traffic accident.

(2.) Mr. M. Kar Bhowmik, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that before the Tribunal a copy of the First Information Report dated 3.1.1996 relating to the accident had been filed which would disclo.se lhat death of late Baikuntha Ghosh was caused by an accident with jeep registered as TR-03-1989. Mr.Bhowmik further submitted that the copy of Sulathal report (Inquest report) dated 7.1.1996 was also filed before the Tribunal in which it is stated that the deceased had been under treatment in G.B. Hospital for sustaining injuries by an accident on 31.12.1995 at Shekerkote and he died on 7.1.1996 at 13-40 hours at the G.B.Hospital and the dead body was sent to IGM hospital Morgue for ascertaining the real cause off death. Thereafter, the Post Mortem was conducted at the IGM hospital, Agartala. The report dated 7.1.1996, copy of which was also filed before the Tribunal, clearly discloses that the cause of death of late Baikuntha Ghosh was the accident which had taken place on 31.12.1995 with the jeep registered as TR03- 1989. Mr. Bhowmik further submitted that a copy of the certificate of Insurance granted by the National Insurance Corespondent No. 3 was also filed before the Tribunal which clearly indicated that the aforesaid vehicle (jeep) was insured with the respondent No. 2 for period from 21.7.1995 to 20.7.1996. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have allowed the no fault claim of Rs. 50,000/- as provided under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and should not have deferred the adjudication of the no fault liability of the respondents till adjudication of the original suit T.S. (MAC) 179 of 1996. Mr. Bhowmik. cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shivaji Dayanu Patil and another Vs. Vastschala Uttam More reported in 1991 ACJ 777 and submitted that the provision under Section 92 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which is similar to the provision of Section 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted with the view to confer the benefit of expenditious payment of limited amount by way of compensation to the victims of an accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle on the basis of no fault liability and while interpreting such a beneficial legislation the approach of the Court should be to adopt a construction which advances the beneficial purpose underlying the enactment in preference to a construction which tends to defeat that purpose. Mr. Bhowmik also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.K.V. Bros.(P) Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others-AIR 1980 SC 1354 wherein the Supreme Court has deprecated the approach of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal in being technical and has held that accident Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there.

(3.) None has appeared for respondent No. 1 despite notice to the said respondent. Mr.B Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Insurance Co. However, vehemently argued that sufficient materials were not placed before the Tribunal to show that the death of late Baikuntha Ghosh was caused by the accident and whatever documents were submitted they were not originals but photo copies of the originals. He further submitted that no opinion of Doctor was on the records of the Tribunal to show that the death of Baikuntha Ghosh was caused on account of accident. Photo copies of the documents which were filed before the Tribunal and on which reliance has been placed by Mr. Bhowmik were at best some documents containing the case of the petitioner and as such no investigation has been made by the Investigating authorities into the said case of the petitioner that the death of Baikuntha Ghosh was caused by the accident with the jeep. On the materials that were on record, according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, the Tribunal was right in not allowing the no fault compensation to the claimant-petitioners and the Tribunal rightly defered adjudication of the claim of the petitioners till hearing of the main claim case.