Tripura High Court
Sri Narayan Banik vs Smt. Sutapa Saha And Ors on 21 June, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP NO.63 OF 2023
Sri Narayan Banik
......Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Sutapa Saha and ors.
.......Respondent(s)
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. Chakraborty, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Saha, Advocate.
Ms. R. Purukayastha, Advocate.
Date of hearing and delivery of
Judgment & Order : 21.06.2024
Whether fit for reporting : NO.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL)
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 challenging the Judgment and Award dated
12.04.2023 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura in case
No.T.S.(MAC)157 of 2020. By filing the suit the claimant has
claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.11,50,000/-. Concerning
the said accident, two ejahars were lodged, one by the wife of the
appellant herein Smti. Manika Dey(Banik) and another by Sri
Dhrubajyoti Saha, the driver of the offending vehicle being
registration no.TR-01-BD-0471. Clubbing the said two ejahars
together, a police case was registered at Bishalgarh Police Station
vide Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.91 OF 2019 under Sections 279/427 of
IPC and Sections 184/177 of M.V. Act.
2. The learned Tribunal below after hearing the parties vide
Judgment dated 12.04.2023 disposed of the claim application with
nil award as the charge sheet of the police case was filed against
the present appellant.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
Judgment and award dated 12.04.2023, the appellant has preferred
this allowed this appeal.
4. Heard Mr. T. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant as well as Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-Insurance Company.
5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the learned Tribunal though exhibited the
police complaint of the claimant as Exbt-6, but, did not consider the
complaint and passed Judgment with nil award. Accordingly, the
learned counsel urged this Court to set aside the impugned
Judgment passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal.
6. Heard and perused the evidence on record.
7. The Tribunal has not considered the evidence nor
examined the police officer in support of the final report which is
filed. Merely on the final report placed on record, the learned
Tribunal below has proceeded and rejected the claim without there
being any evidence before the Tribunal below, and the said
documents also were not marked.
8. Since the Motor Vehicle Act and the claim made there
under are beneficial legislation, proper evidence needs to be
recorded and the procedure contemplated needs to be followed.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside
and as agreed upon by both the parties, the matter is remanded
back to the learned Tribunal below for proper adjudication of the
matter in terms of the reasons indicated above and to pass an
appropriate order.
9. As a sequel, stay if any stands vacated. Pending
application(s), if any also stands closed.
JUDGE
suhanjit
RAJKUMAR Digitally signed by
RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT
SUHANJIT SINGHA
Date: 2024.06.29 15:05:15
SINGHA +05'30'
