Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Salek Ahmed And Anr on 28 October, 2025

                                                                   Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010004802013




                                                            2025:GAU-AS:14349

                         THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : MACApp./79/2013

         LAXMI RANI DAS and 4 ORS
         W/O LATE PABITRA DAS

         2: SUDHANGSHU DAS

          S/O LATE PABITRA DAS

         3: HIMANGSHU DAS

          S/O LATE PABITRA DAS

         4: SITANGSHU DAS

          S/O LATE PABITRA DAS

         5: CHUMKI DAS

          D/O LATE PABITRA DAS
          ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL. 11NO. DINANATHPUR
          P.O. DINANATHPUR
          P.S.KATIGORAH
          DIST. CACHAR
          ASSAM

         VERSUS

         SALEK AHMED and ANR
         S/O LATE TERA MIA, R/O VILL. BAKARSHAL, P.O. JOBAINPUR,
         P.S.KARIMGANJ, DIST.KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.

         2:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

         REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
         LTD.
                                                                       Page No.# 2/7

            STATION ROAD
            KARIMGANJ
            DIST. KARIMGANJ
            ASSAM

      Advocate for the appellants   : Mr. S. C. Biswas, ld. Adv.


      Advocate for the respondents : Mrs. S. Roy, ld Adv.R-2

:::BEFORE:::

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG

Date of hearing : 23.10.2025 Date of Judgment : 28.10.2025

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Mr. S. C. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mrs. S. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. No one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 despite of the receipt of notice.

3. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimganj, in MAC Case No. 18/2011, whereby, the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed on the ground that the death of the deceased was not proved to have been caused by a motor vehicle accident, and that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the Investigating Officer and the witnesses for wrongful gain.

Page No.# 3/7

4. The case of the appellants before the learned Tribunal was that the husband of appellant No. 1 and the father of appellants Nos. 2 to 5, namely Late Pabitra Das, had left home on 15.01.2011 for Jangla Kalibari at Badarpur Ghat, where he stayed for the night. On the following day, i.e., on 16.01.2011, while returning home, he was allegedly hit by a Tata Magic vehicle bearing registration No. AS-10C-1408 at Badarpur Ghat, Alakulipur, at about 3:00 P.M., due to which he sustained injuries. He was then taken to the hospital by the police.

5. The deceased was admitted to Srigouri CHC Hospital and subsequently shifted to SMCH, where he succumbed to his injuries on 17.01.2011. Appellant No. 1 came to know about the death of her husband only after five days, i.e., on 21.01.2011, through the pan shop owner (P.W.3), who is stated to be an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.3 informed her that he had witnessed the accident occurred near his pan shop, at a distance of about 30 meters.

6. On the suggestion of P.W.3, appellant No. 1 visited the police station, where she identified the deceased to be her husband from the photographs shown to her by the police. Thereafter, she returned home to perform the last rites of her deceased husband. The FIR was lodged about 20 days later. After investigation, the police are stated to have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle.

7. The appellants claimed that the deceased was about 45 years old, he was working as a mason, earning Rs. 250/- per day. The appellants filed a petition seeking compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty thousand) only. Appellants/claimants examined three witnesses -- appellant No. 1 herself as P.W.1, a co-worker of the deceased as P.W.2, and an alleged eyewitness as P.W.3.

Page No.# 4/7

8. The eyewitness (P.W.3) stated that he saw a vehicle hit a person about 30 meters away from his pan shop, but he did not go near the scene to identify the victim. He later heard that the person had died in the hospital. In cross- examination, he admitted that his pan shop no longer existed at the time of his deposition.

9. The claimant/appellant No. 1 produced the post-mortem report and inquest report. The Investigating Officer, who is stated to have taken the dead body to the hospital, was not examined. No General Diary entry or charge sheet was exhibited, and the photographs stated to have been shown to appellant No. 1 at the police station, based on which she identified the deceased as her husband was also not produced in evidence.

10. However, two doctors, one who treated the deceased when he was still alive and the other who conducted the post-mortem along with the Circle Officer who held the inquest, were examined as court witnesses.

11. The first doctor, a homeopathic doctor at Srigouri CHC, stated that the patient was brought unconscious, no external injury was noticed, and he was referred to SMCH as no diagnosis could be made. He further deposed that the police, about one and a half months later, telephonically requested him to insert the name and address of the deceased in the register, which he then did. This witness also stated that after about a month, a few persons came claiming to be relatives of the deceased and, on their request, he issued the death certificate.

12. The MBBS doctor who conducted the post-mortem found a lacerated wound on the left side of the face, fracture of adjoining bones, and haematoma on the left parietal region. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage resulting from the injuries sustained. However, in cross-

Page No.# 5/7

examination, he stated that such fractures might have occurred during transit of the body from one place to another.

13. The Circle Officer who conducted the inquest reported that no external injury marks were found except swelling on the right eye. He further deposed that he had mentioned "RTA" (road traffic accident) in his report on the basis of police information; however, he had no personal knowledge of the accident.

14. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that there were material inconsistencies in the evidence of the claimants and witnesses. It observed that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about 20 days. Furthermore, it noted that no contemporaneous report of any road accident was made before the concerned police station, not even a General Diary entry. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reliable proof that the deceased died due to a road traffic accident involving the alleged vehicle. Accordingly, it held that the claim petition appeared to have been filed in collusion with the Investigating Officer and witnesses for wrongful gain and thus dismissed the petition.

15. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence and that the dismissal was based on mere suspicion without substantial proof. It was further contended that the Investigating Officer was not examined before the Tribunal due to the mistake of the conducting counsel, and the record of investigation was not properly considered. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, owing to the lapse of the previous counsel, the family of the victim should not be made to suffer. Therefore, he prayed that the matter be remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving the appellants an opportunity to adduce necessary evidence, including the examination of the Investigating Officer and production of relevant documentary records.

Page No.# 6/7

16. On the other hand, Mrs. Roy, learned counsel for respondent No. 2/Insurance Company, supported the judgment and contended that the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition in the absence of credible proof of the accident.

17. This Court has carefully perused the impugned award and the materials on record. It is evident that the conclusion of the learned Tribunal was largely based on the absence of cogent evidence to connect the death of the deceased with a motor vehicle accident. The incident was recorded as a motor accident merely based on the statement of P.W.3, the pan shop owner, who claimed to have witnessed the accident from about 30 meters away.

18. At the same time, it appears that the Investigating Officer played a crucial role in the case but was not examined before the Tribunal, nor were the relevant police records, FIR, charge sheet, or photographs produced for scrutiny. The non-production of such essential evidence especially in a case where the dead body of the deceased was identified based on photographs shown to appellant No. 1 left a material gap going to the root of the case.

19. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the matter could not have been adjudicated effectively in the absence of these crucial documents and testimonies. Since the appellants now seek a remand to produce necessary evidence and clarify the deficiencies noted by the learned Tribunal, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunities to both parties.

20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated below:

i. The judgment and award dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned Page No.# 7/7

Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimganj, in MAC Case No. 18/2011, is set aside.

ii. The matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after giving both parties liberty to adduce oral and documentary evidence, including the examination of the Investigating Officer and production of relevant police records.

iii. The learned Tribunal shall make every endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously, preferably within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.