NIBHA DEVI Vs. RAJ KUMAR SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the Award dated 25.01.2014 passed by the learned District Judge-II-cum-Additional Claim Tribunal, Chatra in Claim Case No. 24 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has been pleased to dismiss the claim petition of the claimants on the ground no sufficient evidence to prove that Baijnath Sahu died in motor vehicle accident.

(3.) As per the claim application factual matrix is that on the basis of written information given by Barhan Sao on 27.09.2007 to the then Officer-inCharge of Pratappur that his son-in- law Baijnath Sahu is missing and he has last contacted him on 26.09.2007 at about 2:00 pm and informed him that he is coming to Pratapur. But when he did not turn up till 8:00 pm on same day, he contacted his Samdhi- Bigar Sao and they together started search operation and could find motor cycle bearing Registration No. JH 13A 3256 on which his son-in-law was riding in a damaged state near Chiniyahi Bridge, Gerua at about 12:00 am. On the next morning they found dead body of Baijnath Sahu in the water. It was alleged that some unknown vehicle which was driven rashly and negligently dashed his son-in-law resulting into his death. After investigation, final form was filed. During Investigation it was found that some unknown vehicle dashed Baijnath Sahu, resulting into his death, but the identification of the vehicle could not be established. Further case of the claimants is that Baijnath Sahu was aged about 22 years old and he was by profession contractor and owner of brick kiln. He was self employed and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. The motorcycle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., but the offending vehicle s identification could not be established. . On notice O.P. No.1 Raj Kumar Sahu/respondent No.1 appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that Baijnath Sahu was driving his motorcycle bearing Regn. No. JH 13 A3256. At the time of accident the motorcycle was insured with Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd vide Policy No. 1501372312103008 which was valid from 15.03.2007 to 14.03.2008. A copy of the policy was annexed with the record. O.P. No.2/respondent No.2-Insurance Company did not appear so the case was heard ex-parte against Insurance Company.