MEENA DEVI Vs. SAKUNTALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by Meena Devi and Uday Bhuiyan parents of the deceased Sanjay Kumar against the judgment dated 28.8.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-II-cum-M.A.C.T., Chatra in connection with Claim Case No. 15/2005 whereby the learned Tribunal has refused to allow the petition filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. The brief fact behind the Claim Application is that the appellants with their son Sanjay Kumar got down from the Commander Jeep near Gorwali School in order to go to Tulsipur. In course of crossing Chatra Dobhi Road, a Truck bearing registration No. BR-1G-2735 dashed Sanjay Kumar, as a result, he sustained injuries and in course of removing hospital died. The accident took place on 14.7.2004. The learned Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that the appellants have failed to prove the occurrence and appellant No. 2-Uday Bhuiyan, who happens to be the father of the deceased, is class-II heir and therefore, he is not entitled for any claim.

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that after the accident took place, occurrence was reported to the concerned Police Station and a case being Hunterganj P.S. Case No. 67/04 dated 14.7.2004 was registered against the driver of vehicle No. BR-1G-2735. Postmortem was also done on the dead body of Sanjay Kumar and after concluding investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. All those documents alongwith the application were filed before the Tribunal but the teamed Tribunal has elaborately discussed, the evidence and document and the contention made in the Claim Application and passed a detailed judgment on a petition filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has gone beyond the purview and considerations required to be considered in a petition filed under Section 140 of the M.V. Act and therefore, the impugned judgment is highly erroneous and liable to be set aside. It is further pointed out that the insurance policy of the offending vehicle is not denied by the respondent-Insurance Company.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, who happens to be the owner of the vehicle did not appear whereas respondent No. 2-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has put appearance. Though the learned Counsel opposed the argument but did not dispute the policy under which the offending vehicle was insured.