T. Vaiphei JUDGMENT
T. Vaiphei, C.J.
1. Aggrieved by the nil award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in his judgment dated 25-1-2016 of TS (MAC) No. 340 of 2013, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimants.
2. The brief facts of the case, as pleaded by the appellants, may be noticed at the outset. On 3-4-2013 at about 6.30 AM, while Subhash Majumder along with Gopal Ch. Deb and some 6/7 colleagues were returning on foot after catching fish, suddenly one Mahindra Maxx bearing registration No. TR-01-F-0733 appeared and hit him and his colleagues and got capsized. As a result, the said Subhash Majumder and his colleagues sustained several injuries on their bodies. They were immediately evacuated to the Jirania PHC by the local people and were then shifted to GBP Hospital on the same day. On 31-7-2013, the said Subhash Majumder succumbed to his injuries after prolonged treatment as indoor patient at GB Hospital till 18-4-2013. He is survived by his wife, the appellant No. 1 and his son and daughter, who are the appellant No. 2 and 3 respectively. The appellant claimed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Mahindra Maxx. The Police registered Jirania PS Case No. 37/2013 U/s. 279/304-A IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellants, therefore, filed the claim petition claiming a compensation of ` 26,44,000/- for the death of the deceased. The deceased was stated to be a fisherman at the time of the accident and was earning ` 9,000/- per month as an income. He was also stated to be 50 years of age when he met the accident.
3. The claim petition was opposed by the owner of the vehicle, who is the respondent No. 1 herein, by filing his written statement. He denied that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving. He claimed that on the date of the accident, the vehicle had valid documents and was driven by its driver, who had a valid driving license and that the vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., which was accordingly liable to satisfy should any compensation be awarded to the appellants. The insurer also contested the claim petition and filed its written statement wherein it denied and disputed the claims of the appellants. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Did Subhash Majumder sustain any injury on 3-4-2013 at about 6.30 AM near Khamarbari on the Assam-Agartala road in a road traffic accident involving the Mahindra Maxx bearing No. TR-01-F-0733 due to its rash and negligent driving?
2. Did Subhash Majumder die on 31-07-2013 due to the injuries sustained in the accident?
3. Are the claimants entitled to get compensation as legal heirs of Subhash Majumder? If so, to what extent and who shall be liable to pay the same?
4. At the conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment refusing to award any compensation to the appellants. The findings of the Tribunal can be best understood by quoting from paragraph 11 of the judgment, which are as under:
"11. Witnesses for the claimants have corroborated the claimant No. 1 that on 3-4-2013 at about 6.30 AM, Subhash Majumder along with Gopal Chandra Deb and others were coming from Khamarbari, Champaknagar after catching fish. As they reached Kharmarbari on the Assam-Agartala road, the Mahindra Max bearing No. TR-01-F-0733 coming from the southern side in a rash and negligent manner dashed them. But from the FIR lodged by the son of deceased Gopal Chandra Deb proved as Exbt. 6 series by the claimants, it appears that his father and others were travelling in the vehicle. Result of the investigation, i.e. the charge sheet proved as Exbt. B series reveals that Gopal Deb and others were in fact travelling in the vehicle.
FIR is the basis of every MAC case. Unless there is an FIR, the case has no ........