Tripura High Court
) The Director General Of Police vs ) Smt. Mamata Chowdhury on 30 June, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC.APP.No.125 of 2024
1) The Director General of Police,
Near Fire Brigade Chowmuhani,
Government of Tripura, Agartala,
Tripura West
2) The Superintendent of Police,
Udaipur, P.S.-R.K.Pur, District-Gomati Tripura
---- Appellant(s)
Versus
1) Smt. Mamata Chowdhury,
wife of Late Nikhil Chowdhury
2) Smt. Piyali Chowdhury,
daughter of Late Nikhil Chowdhury
----Claimant-Respondent(s)
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Addl. G.A.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Asutosh De, Adv.
Ms. Meena Ali, Adv.
Mr. Robel Hossain, Adv.
Date of Hearing of
Judgment & Order : 30.06.2025
Whether fit for reporting : NO
_________________________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal is preferred by the appellant
challenging the judgment and award dated 30.08.2024 passed
by Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tripura No.1, West
Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case No.T.S.(MAC)101 of
2020.
[02] Heard Mr. Karnajit De, Learned Addl. G.A.
appearing on behalf of the appellant OPs and also heard Mr.
Asutosh De, Learned counsel assisted by Ms. Meena Ali, Learned
counsel and Mr. Robel Hossain, Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-claimant petitioners.
[03] Taking part in the hearing, Learned counsel for the
appellant first of all drawn the attention of the Court referring
para-8 of the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal that
there was no evidence of rash and negligent act on the part of
the driver of the alleged offending vehicle of the appellants but
the Learned Tribunal below did not appreciate the evidence on
record properly for which the judgment and award of the
Learned Tribunal below needs to be interfered with.
[04] He further drawn the attention of the Court
referring para-9 of the said judgment and submitted that all
though, the petition was filed under Section 166 of M.V. Act by
the respondent-claimant petitioners but the Learned Tribunal
below at the time of deciding issue Nos.1,2 & 3 came to the
observation that the petition filed was not maintainable under
Section 166 of M.V. Act rather the same was maintainable under
Section 163 of M.V. Act.
[05] Learned counsel further submitted that in para
No.12 of the judgment it was specifically mentioned by the
Learned Tribunal that there was a quarrel at Purba Aralia and
getting information the police personnel went there by boarding
vehicle bearing registration No.TR-01-B-1149(Zipsy) to control
over the situation and while the police personnel were
discharging their duties, that time suddenly some unruly mobs
attacked them with dao, lathi, bricks etc. and started pelting
stones upon them. Considering the situation, while the driver
tried to leave the spot with the vehicle, the driver of the police
van suddenly lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle fallen
to a nearest ditch and as a result of which all the person boarded
in that vehicle sustained injuries on their person and the
deceased Nikhil Chowdhury sustained fatal injuries. Referring the
same contention, Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the Learned Tribunal below in course of delivery of
judgment came to the observation that there was no rash and
negligent act on the part of the driver but surprisingly the
Learned Tribunal without appreciating the evidence on record
allowed the claim petition. Furthermore, according to Learned
counsel from the charge-sheet also it is clear that there was no
rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle
and as such, the claim petition was not maintainable but the
Learned Tribunal below allowed the claim petition.
[06] Thereafter, Learned counsel for the appellants
further drawn the attention of the Court referring para
Nos.3,4,5,7,8 & 9 of the written statement filed by the appellants
which are as follows :
"3. That, it is fact that when police
personnel of Garjee OP having vehicle
bearing No.TR-01B-1149(Gpysy) on
10.08.2019 at about 1920 hours went for
performing office duty regarding the issue
causing high tension among local people
at Purba Aralia under the jurisdiction of
R.K. Pur PS. On arrival at the spot the
miscreants of that locality attacked on the
police personnel with intention to kill
them. Finding no other alternatives the
driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.TR-
01B-1149(Gpysy) tried to leave the spot
for protecting the police personnel from
the miscreants. At that time the vehicle
while returning from the spot suddenly
fell into a ditch resultantly causing
injuries to the staff who were inside the
vehicle.
4. That, it is fact that after the said
accident a case was registered under R.K.
Pur PS vide No.2019/RKP/0117 U/S
353/333/338/307/332/427 IPC and
added section 304 of IPC.
5. That, it is fact that the vehicle bearing
No.TR-01B-1149(Gpysy) met an accident
at Holakhet and had fallen into ditch when
driver of the vehicle tried to leave the spot
for protecting the police personnel from
physical assault of the local people.
7. That, it is submitted that the driver of
the vehicle bearing No.TR-01B-
1149(Gpysy) was not driven the vehicle
rash and negligently when the vehicle met
an accident. There was no fault on the
part of the driver who had driven the
police vehicle bearing No. TR-01B-
1149(Gpysy).
8. That, the accident took place due to fall
of the vehicle into the ditch and for that
reason driver of the vehicle lost control
over the vehicle.
9. That, the various particulars relating to
the accident, age of the victim and
occupation of the victim are not admitted
and the petitioners are strictly put to
substantiate their claim by adducing
evidence with original supporting
documents."
[07] Learned counsel also tried to drawn the attention
of the Court referring the statement of witnesses [Exbt.2 series]
and submitted that from the statement of those witnesses it is
clear that there was no rash and negligent act on the part of the
driver but the Learned Tribunal below did not consider the same
and allowed the claim petition which is not permissible in the eye
of law and does not comes under the purview of the M.V. Act for
seeking claim. Finally, Learned counsel referring the charge-
sheet submitted that since there was no evidence of rash and
negligent act, so, the claim petition was not maintainable and
the judgment and award delivered by Learned Tribunal needs to
be interfered with and be set aside.
[08] On the other hand, Learned counsel for the
respondent-claimant petitioners fairly submitted that in the
charge-sheet it was clearly referred by the IO that the driver of
the vehicle due to fear lost his control on the vehicle and fallen in
a ditch which prima facie shows that he was negligent in
discharging his duties properly and the accident occurred and
due to accident, the victim Nikhil Chowdhury sustained fatal
injuries and other police personnel also sustained fatal injuries
due to that accident and finally submitted that the appellants
before the Learned Tribunal could not adduce any
oral/documentary evidence on record to substantiate that there
was no rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle and as such, the Learned Tribunal based upon
the evidence on record of the parties allowed the claim petition
and there was no infirmity in the judgment and award delivered
by Learned Tribunal below and urged for dismissal of the appeal.
[09] The respondent-claimant petitioners submitted one
claim petition before the Tribunal alleging inter alia that on
10.08.2019 at about 7.30 p.m. Nikhil Chowdhury, being a
constable of Police Department, Government of Tripura went to
Holakhet along with other staff by riding a vehicle bearing
registration No. TR-01-B-1149(Zipsy) to arrest one accused.
When they were returning towards Garji Out Post and reached at
Holakhet, that time the vehicle met with an accident due to
negligent driving by the driver. As a result, Nikhil Chowdhury
sustained multiple grievous injuries on his person and
immediately he was shifted to Gomati District Hospital, Udaipur
from where he was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala
and on 12.08.2019 injured Nikhil Chowdhury was sent to
Peerless Hospital, Kolkata for better treatment but on
17.09.2019, the victim succumbed to his injury in the hospital. It
was also submitted that at the time of accident, the deceased
was 56 years old and as a constable of police department and he
used to draw salary of Rs.45,000/- per month.
[10] The case was contested by appellant OPs denying
the assertions of the claimant petitioners and upon the pleadings
of the parties Learned Tribunal below framed the following
issues:
"(1) Is the claim application filed by the
claimant petitioners U/S 166 of M.V. Act,
1988 claiming compensation for the death
of late Nikhil Chowdhury, S/o late
Harendra Choudhury of Paschim
Gakulnagar, P.S- Bishalgarh, Sepahijala
District maintainable in its present form
and nature ?
(2) Had Nikhil Chowdhury (now
deceased), a constable of police, Govt. of
Tripura, died out of a road traffic accident
occurred on 10.08.2019 at about 7.30
p.m. near Holakhet under Garjee Police
Out Post ?
(3) Was the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the vehicle
bearing registration No.TR-01-B-
1149(Zypsy) by its driver ?
(4) Are the claimant petitioners entitled to
get compensation as prayed for and if yes,
then to what extent ?
(5) What other relief/reliefs the parties to
this case are entitled to get ?"
To substantiate the issues both the parties have
adduced oral/documentary evidence on record :
"The petitioners examined petitioner No.1
Smt.Mamata Chowdhury as PW-1 in this
case. PW-1 also proved certain documents
into evidence such as certified copy of
printed form of FIR in connection with
R.K. Pur P.S. Case No.117 of 2019 dated
11.08.2019U/Ss.353/333/338/307/323/
427 of IPC (Exbt.1), certified copies of
statements of the witnesses namely;
Jibson Marak, Maran Chandra Das and
Nandan Bhowmik recorded U/S 161 of
Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Police Officer
of R.K. Pur P.S. Case No.117 of 2019
(Exbt.2 series), certified copy of
forwarding letter issued by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, East Division,
Kolkata to the Superintendent of Police,
Gomati District Udaipur regarding post
mortem examination report of Nikhil
Chowdhury (Exbt.3), certified copy of
charge sheet submitted by police in
connection with R.K. Pur P.S. Case
No.2019RKP117 dated 11.08.2019
(Exbt.4), original bills issued from GBP
Hospital, Agartala dated 10.08.2019 and
11.08.2019 (Exbt.5 series), original
certificate issued by Dr. Prasad Krishan,
National Neoro Sciences Center, Calcutta
dated 17.09.2019 (Exbt.6), final bill
amounting to Rs.4,54,562/- issued by the
Peerless Hospital and Research Centre
Limited (Exbt.7 series), Final bill
amounting to Rs.6,81,420/- issued by
National Neoro Sciences Center, Calcutta
(Exbt.8 series), Air-tickets, boarding
passes and Bills issued by Hindustan Tour
and Travels, Agartala (Exbt.9 series),
original school certificate of Nikhil
Chowdhury issued by the Head-Master,
Ishanchandra Nagar Pargana H.S. (+2)
Stage School dated 04.10.1985 (Exbt.10)
and original salary certificate of T/3786
Nikhil Chowdhury of Gomati District Police
Organization for the month of September,
2019 issued by Bikash Debbarma,
Inspector of Police, Gomati District,
Udaipur (DDO) (Exbt.11). On the other
hand, the O.Ps i.e. the custodian of the
vehicle in support of their pleadings
examined one witness namely Samir Roy
as OPW-1. However, they did not prove
any document in support of their
pleadings."
Finally by judgment and award dated 30.08.2024
allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent claimant
petitioners. The operative portion runs as follows :
"It is, therefore, held that the claimant
petitioners are entitled to get
compensation of Rs.51,05,100/-(Rupees
Fifty One Lakh Five Thousand and One
Hundred) only with interest @ 7.5 % per
annum with effect from 08.07.2020 i.e.
the date of filing of the claim petition till
the date of actual payment. O.P. No.2 i.e.
the Superintendent of Police, Gomati
District, Tripura being the immediate
controlling officer of the offending vehicle
shall pay the amount of compensation
with interest within 30 days from today in
terms of Section 168(3) of M.V. Act, 1988.
The awarded amount of
compensation with interest shall be
divided equally among the claimant
petitioners. Out of the share of claimant
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 namely, Smt.
Mamata Chowdhury and Smt. Piyali
Chowdhury, 75% each of their share shall
be kept in fixed deposit scheme in their
respective name with any Nationalized
Bank for a period of five years each and
remaining 25% of their respective share
shall be paid to them through their
respective bank accounts. However, the
claimant petitioner nos.1 and 2 may
withdraw the monthly interest from their
fixed deposit accounts to utilize the same
for their day to day expenses. No loan or
withdrawal shall be permitted
from/against any of the fixed deposit
certificates without prior permission of
this Tribunal.
Supply copy of this award free of
cost to the parties.
The claim petition stands disposed
of on contest.
Enter the result in the relevant
Register as well as in the CIS."
Challenging that award, the appeal is before this
Court.
[11] I have detailed arguments of both the sides at
length and also perused the record of the Learned Tribunal
below. The respondent claimant petitioners adduced only one
witness before the Tribunal and also relied upon some
documents which were marked as Exhibits. PW-1, Smt. Mamata
Choudhury being the wife of the deceased submitted in her
examination-in-chief in affidavit and she relied upon the
documents which were marked as Exhibits but during cross-
examination save and except denial no afford was taken by the
respondent OPs to create any doubt or cloud regarding the
alleged plea of absence of rash and negligent driving by the
driver at that relevant point of time. Even, the present appellant
OPs before the Tribunal adduced one witness as OPW-1, Sri
Samir Roy who during cross-examination specifically stated that
he did not see the alleged traffic accident in his own eyes and he
was not available at the time of accident. From his evidence
there is no scope to place any reliance upon the defence theory
and furthermore, the present appellants also did not take any
afford to disbelieve the record of evidence of the claimant
petitioners. Learned counsel for the appellant petitioners
although submitted that the respondent-claimant petitioners
could not prove the fact of rash and negligent driving by the
driver and the charge-sheet of IO was also silent in this regard
but on bare perusal of the evidence on record of PW-1 and the
charge-sheet it appears that on the relevant date and time at the
time of proceeding towards Garji when the police vehicle being
driven by the driver along with some other staff reached at
Holakhet that time some unknown mob attacked upon their
vehicle for which the driver lost control over the vehicle and fell
down into a Lunga which shows negligence on the part of the
driver. So, the story projected by Learned counsel for the
appellants cannot be accepted as a valid one and furthermore, to
substantiate the defence theory the appellants also failed to
adduce any oral/documentary evidence on record before the
Learned Tribunal below. Situated thus, it appears that the
appellants have failed to make out any case to allow the appeal
and to set aside the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal
below.
[12] In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
National Insurance Company Limited versus
Chamundeswari and Others reported in (2021) 18 SCC 596
wherein in para No.8 Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under :
"8. It is clear from the evidence on record
of PW-1 as well as PW-3 that the Eicher
van which was going in front of the car,
has taken a sudden right turn without
giving any signal or indicator. The
evidence of PW-1 & PW-3 is categorical
and in absence of any rebuttal evidence by
examining the driver of Eicher van, the
High Court has rightly held that the
accident occurred only due to the
negligence of the driver of Eicher van. It is
to be noted that PW-1 herself travelled in
the very car and PW-3, who has given
statement before the police, was
examined as eye-witness. In view of such
evidence on record, there is no reason to
give weightage to the contents of the First
Information Report. If any evidence
before the Tribunal runs contrary to the
contents in the First Information Report,
the evidence which is recorded before the
Tribunal has to be given weightage over
the contents of the First Information
Report."
In view of the aforesaid citation of law, it appears
that since the initial FIR and consequential charge-sheet is found
contrary to the evidence laid by the respondent claimant
petitioners in that case, then, the evidence recorded before the
Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the FIR.
In this case, since the evidence of the respondents claimant
remain un-rebutted by the appellant respondents both by oral or
documentary evidence on record, so, the contention of Learned
counsel for the appellants that there was no rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver cannot be accepted.
[13] In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is
dismissed being devoid of merit. The judgment and award dated
30.08.2024 delivered by Learned Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in connection with Case
No.T.S.(MAC)101 of 2020 is hereby upheld and accordingly, the
same is affirmed. It appears that as per order of this High Court
dated 22.01.2025 in I.A.No.01/2024 arising out of this appeal
the appellants deposited 40% of the amount inclusive of interest
before the Registry of the High Court. So, the appellants be
asked to deposit the balance amount along with interest as
awarded by Learned Tribunal below to the Registry of the High
Court within a period of 2(two) months from the date of the
judgment/order passed by this Court. Since the case is disposed
of. So, the Registry be asked to release the deposited amount of
Rs.27,66,824/-(Rupees Twenty Seven Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand
Eight Hundred and Twenty Four) only to the respondent-claimant
petitioners after observing all formalities, as no objection was
raised by the appellants in course of hearing. The
I.A.No.02/2025 accordingly stands disposed of and the present
appeal also stands disposed of accordingly.
Send down the record of the Learned Tribunal
below along with a copy of the judgment/order. A copy of the
judgment/order be furnished to Learned counsel for the
appellants for information and necessary action and also a copy
of this judgment/order be supplied to Learned counsel for the
respondent-claimant petitioners for information.
JUDGE
MOUMITA Digitally signed by
MOUMITA DATTA
DATTA Date: 2025.07.03
01:36:56 +05'30'
Sabyasachi B
