The Chairman vs Sri Digbijoy Debnath
2021 Latest Caselaw 242 Tri

                              Page - 1 of 12




                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA

                          MAC APP. No.43/2019

The Chairman, Holy Cross School,
Durjoynagar, P.S. - Airport, District - West Tripura,
represented by Fr. Joe Paul csc, Administrator of Holy Cross School,
Agartala, Tripura.
                                                   ............... Appellant(s).
                                    Vs.
1. Sri Digbijoy Debnath,
   S/o - Late Krishnalal Debnath,
2. Smt. Kalpana Debnath,
   D/o - Late Krishnalal Debnath, W/o - Sri Swapan Debnath,
   both are resident of Chesrimai, PS- Bishramganj, District - Sepahijala
   Tripura.
                                                ............... Respondent(s).

                           _B_E_ F_O_R_E_
    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
      For Appellant(s)              : Mr. B N Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
                                      Mr. S Lodh, Advocate.
      For Respondent(s)             : Mr. H K Bhowmik, Advocate.
      Date of hearing & judgment : 26th February, 2021.
      Whether fit for reporting     : No.

                      J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

This appeal is filed by the original opponent of motor accident

claim petition [TS(MAC)382/2010] filed by the respondents herein to Page - 2 of 12

challenge a judgment dated 14th December, 2018 passed by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The opponents-original claimants are dependants of Krishnalal

Debnath who was fatally injured in a hit and run accident on 22nd March,

2010 on Agartala-Udaipur road in the Agartala town. According to the

claimants, the vehicle involved in the accident was a Tata Sumo Delux

Jeep Van bearing registration No.TR01-0556. Further, according to the

claimants, the appellant Holy Cross School was a registered owner of the

vehicle. According to them, there were two eye-witnesses who had seen

the accident, one of them had noted down the registration number of the

vehicle and reported to them upon which they had filed the claim petition

seeking compensation from the owner of the vehicle.

[3] Case of the appellant is that it never owned the Tata Sumo of the

registration description given by the claimants. The school is falsely

implicated since the claimants could not locate the vehicle which was

actually involved in the accident. The appellant would point out that the

police had carried out the investigation into the said incident and upon

completion of the investigation filed a charge sheet in which it was Page - 3 of 12

revealed that the vehicle involved was a Tata Sumo bearing registration

No.TR01-T-0556, which also the appellant never owned or possessed.

[4] Before the Claims Tribunal, the claimants examined Digbijoy

Debnath Claimant No.1 as PW.1, Sankar Debnath PW.2 and Prantosh

Debnath PW.3 who claimed to be the eyewitnesses. The appellant

examined the Administrator of the school as DW.1.

[5] During the pendency of the claim petition, the appellant had filed

a civil suit(TS.21/2013) before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) for

cancellation of a screen report which apparently showed the appellant as

the registered owner of Tata Sumo TR01-0556. An offshoot of the said suit

reached the High Court in CRP No.72/2014 which was decided by a

judgment dated 17th June, 2015 in which certain observations have been

made and which would be relevant for our purpose. At this stage, we may

only record that the learned Judge after examining various documents and

materials, came to the conclusion that such suit was not necessary and it

would be open for the appellant to oppose the claim made by the claimants

on appropriate grounds showing that Holy Cross School is not the owner

of the said vehicle.

Page - 4 of 12

[6] The Claims Tribunal disposed of the claim petition by the

impugned judgment awarding a compensation of Rs.4,66,036/- to be paid

by the Holy Cross School. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that

the appellant was the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. For

arriving at such a conclusion the learned Judge referred to the evidence

produced by the claimants as also the material collected by the Police

during the course of investigation. A reference is also made to the

observations made by this Court while disposing of the revision petition of

the Holy Cross School by the above noted judgment dated 17th June, 2015.

[7] Appearing for Holy Cross School, learned counsel Mr. S Lodh

submitted that the school has been falsely roped in. It never owned or

possessed the Tata Sumo of the description given by the claimants, nor the

description given by the police in the charge sheet which according to the

police, was involved in the accident. The claimants are trying to involve

the Holy Cross School because the vehicle which was actually involved in

the accident was neither insured nor owned by a person who could pay the

compensation. There was no evidence produced by the claimants to show

that the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TR01-0556 was

involved in the accident or that the appellant was the owner thereof. He

drew my attention to the observations made in the judgment of this Court Page - 5 of 12

dated 17th June, 2015 to contend that no vehicle of this description even

existed. The learned Judge has committed a serious error in relying on a

mere screenshot supposedly of the website of the Regional Transport

Office without such document being produced and proved on record.

[8] On the other hand, learned counsel for the opponents-original

claimants opposed the appeal contending that the Tribunal has correctly

relied on the eyewitness accounts. The police investigation cannot disturb

such evidence. The Holy Cross School has produced no evidence though

opportunity was granted by this Court in the said judgment dated 17 th June,

2015. Mere non-exhibiting the document by the Claims Tribunal cannot be

a ground for rejecting a claim in a beneficial legislation such as Motor

Vehicles Act,1988.

[9] Both sides as also the Claims Tribunal have referred to several

observations made by this Court in the said judgment dated 17th June,

2015. I may, therefore, begin the discussion with reference to the said

judgment. As the centre of the controversy was a screenshot purportedly

showing Holy Cross School as the owner of vehicle bearing registration

No.TR01-0556 which was stated to be a Tata Sumo Delux, manufacturing

year being 1993 and it was registered as a petrol vehicle. Holy Cross Page - 6 of 12

School had approached the Tata Motors Limited asking for the details of

the said vehicle to which the Tata Motors had written that no vehicle

bearing the chassis number has given any RTO of model Tata Sumo Delux

of the year 1993 was manufactured. It also conveyed that the screenshot

showed the vehicle to be a patrol driven vehicle whereas Tata Sumo

vehicles are always diesel driven vehicles. The number of seats sown in the

screen report was 3 whereas Tata Sumo having seating capacity of 6 to 10

but not 3 for sure. Last but not least, the first manufacture of Tata Sumo

begun in the year 1994 and therefore, there could not have been any Tata

Sumo vehicle manufactured in the year 1993.

[10] Since the police had filed a charge sheet indicating the number of

the vehicle involved in the accident as TR01-T-0556, the learned Judge

had requested the Government Advocate to produce the record relating to

said vehicle from the RTO and upon perusal of which it was recorded that

the owner of vehicle was shown to be one Ranjit Debbarma and it was a

Tata Sumo Jeep vehicle. The learned Judge had also called upon Holy

Cross School to produce all its accounts pertaining to the years 1992-1993

to 1994-1995 and made an observation that there is no entry of purchasing

any such vehicle during the relevant time. The learned Judge also made an

observation that there was sufficient material to show from the certificate Page - 7 of 12

of Tata Motors Limited that no Sumo vehicle was manufactured prior to

1994 and therefore, the question of Sumo vehicle purchased in the year

1993 and being registered in 1993 would not arise, if that is the position.

Without going to the finality of such a question the learned Judge observed

that the school had placed sufficient material to cast doubt on the screen

report issued by the State authority because "the record of the State is

totally deficient and is not supported by the record of the company".

Having held that, the learned Judge was of the opinion that it was not

necessary for the Holy Cross School to file a separate suit contesting the

correctness of the screenshot, instead can always oppose the claim on all

grounds before the Claims Tribunal. In the process, liberty was also

granted to the claimants whether to change the registration number of the

vehicle involved to TR01-T-0556.

[11] The evidence on record needs to be appreciated in background of

such observations. Though these observations cannot be seen as binding to

the parties or to the Tribunal, nevertheless would require me to assess the

evidence minutely. PW.1 Digbijoy Debnath was not an eyewitness. His

evidence is relevant only to the limited extent of recording that from the

date of filing of the claim petition till its disposal, at no stage, the claimants

changed their position of the vehicle involved being of registration Page - 8 of 12

No.TR01-0556 and that it was a Tata Sumo Delux Jeep. PW.2 Sankar

Debnath claimed that he was present when the accident took place. He was

a milk seller. He saw Tata Sumo TR01-0556 knocking down a pedestrian.

He had helped shift the injured to a nearby hospital and informed the

family members. In the cross-examination, he was questioned on

involvement of Tata Sumo vehicle of the given description. Similar was

the version of PW.3 Prantosh Debnath and consequently, similar was the

cross-examination of this witness also.

[12] DW.1 the Administrator of the Holy Cross School in his

deposition had denied that the school ever owned the said vehicle. On

behalf of the school, an Advocate had applied to the RTO under RTI for

supplying necessary documents of the registration of the vehicle No.TR01-

0556. The Joint Transport Commissioner informed the applicant that they

are unable to provide the requested documents which are either being

misplaced or damaged while shifting the office or due to fire which

occurred in the office premises. He further pointed out that the police had

registered a complaint for accidental death in which the number of vehicle

involved was given TR01-0556. He also referred to the correspondence

with Tata Motors which contradicted every possible detail given in the

screenshot regarding the vehicle in question.

Page - 9 of 12

[13] After the High Court gave its judgment on 17th June 2015, DW.1

gave further evidence in which he contended that the Holy Cross School is

neither the owner of vehicle TR01-0556 nor of TR01-T-0556. He again

referred to the certificate issued by the Tata Motors on 28th September,

2014 regarding make, manufacture date etc. of vehicle in question. In the

cross-examination, he agreed that in the Transport department the vehicle

i.e. TR01-0556 is shown in the name of Holy Cross Society but claimed

that the same was wrongly done.

[14] It may also be recorded that at one stage the police had filed a

charge sheet concluding that the vehicle involved in the accident was Tata

Sumo TR01-0556. On an objection, the Court asked the police to carry out

further inquiry upon which a fresh charge sheet was filed in which it was

stated that the involvement of the vehicle was of TR01-T-0556 and that it

was owned by one Kalachan Debbarma who had sold it to some other

person later on and eventually, the vehicle was purchased by a scrap dealer

and the whereabouts of the vehicle or the ownership were not known.

[15] On the basis of such evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the

vehicle involved was TR01-0556 and was owned by the Holy Cross

School. This was on the bases that according to the Tribunal, the Page - 10 of 12

registration of the vehicle still remained in the name of the Holy Cross

School and the school had not produced any evidence to rebut this factor

for the Tribunal to disbelieve such registration certificate. The charge sheet

contents were discarded on the basis of a judgment of this Court in case of

Rampati Chakma Vs. Sunil Kumar Ram and Ors. reported in (2016) 2

TLR 975.

[16] From the materials on record it can be seen that there was shaky

evidence of involvement of a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration

No.TR01-0556. According to the police, real culprit was Tata Sumo TR01-

T-0556. The witness of the appellant had referred to the certificate issued

by the Tata Motors suggesting that such vehicles were never manufactured

prior to 1994,that Tata Sumos are never made in petrol version and lastly,

contrary to the registration details it is not the 3 seater vehicle but carries

least 6 to 10 seats. It is true that certificate was not produced and proved by

examining the author of the certificate. However, one can take judicial

notice of the fact that Tata Sumo was a large size vehicle and never came

in a model of only 3 seat capacity. Further, when the appellant approached

the RTO for providing details of the registration of the vehicle, the

authority cited inability to provide the same due to passage of time and

possible destruction of the records.

Page - 11 of 12

[17] As against this, the claimants have produced a bare copy of the

screenshot supposedly of the RTO authorities showing the detail of the

vehicle and that it was owned by the appellant. It would be highly unsafe

to rely on a copy of a screenshot without any further inquiries. Firstly, no

RTO officer was examined. Secondly, the contents seem very fishy for the

reasons noted above. Thirdly, this Court also in a judgment dated 17th June,

2015 had made strong prima facie observations about the genuineness of

the screenshot and lastly, such document was neither proved nor exhibited.

It is not a mere oversight on part of the Tribunal to not exhibit a document

which was otherwise proved. The name of Holy Cross School as an owner

in some so-called screenshot, therefore, cannot be a conclusive proof of its

ownership.

[18] The claimants remained steadfast in their belief of the

involvement of the vehicle and never wanted to shift it to involvement of

Tata Sumo TR01-T-0556 which according to the police investigation was

the vehicle actually involved in the accident.

In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of the

Claims Tribunal is reversed. Appeal disposed of accordingly. Pending Page - 12 of 12

application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Records and proceedings be

transmitted to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

( AKIL KURESHI ), CJ

Sukhendu