- (1.) This application is at the instance of the petitioners of a motor accident claim case and is directed against the order dated October 30, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Fast Track Court, Alipurduar in M.A.C. Case No.71 of 2003.
(2.) The short fact of the case is that the petitioners filed a motor accident claim case against the owner of the offending vehicle and the insurance company. In that case, the insurance company was contesting the claim petition. The said claim case was at the stage of delivery of judgment. At that time, the learned Judge did not deliver the judgment but called for the G.R. Case No.1290 of 2003 and also the sketch map of the P.O. That G. R. case arose out of the alleged accident from which the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by such portion of the order passed by the learned Judge, the petitioners have come up with this application.
(3.) Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioners and for the opposite party and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that at the stage of delivery of judgment, the learned Judge has called for the G.R. Case No.1290 of 2003 from the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri which arose out of the accident. Now, the Rules 329 and 330 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lay down what are the materials to be placed in support of the claim application for compensation. The claimants have furnished all the necessary documents as are required in support of the claim case for compensation. Thereafter, the learned Judge has asked for the said G.R. Case number and the sketch map. Whatever may be result of the G.R. Case No.1290 of 2003 whether ended in acquittal or conviction, it cannot influence anyway in determining the merit of the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the learned Judge was not justified in claiming the said G.R. case to arrive at a conclusion in the compensation claim case. So, that portion of the impugned order cannot be supported. The decision reported in 1994(2) T.A.C. 557 clearly lays down that the rough sketch map prepared by the I.O. at the time of investigation bears not much importance in respect of a claim petition for compensation. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, submits that according to the decisions reported in 2010 (1) T.A.C. 104 (cal), 2010 ACJ 455 and 2007 ACJ 2006 as soon as any accident occurs, the police authorities are required to comply with the provisions of 158(1) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and non-compliance of the said provision may lead to confusion and filing of false claims. Thus, he submits that the police authorities must comply with such provisions and so orders may be passed accordingly. With due respect to Mr. K. K. Das, I am of the view that it is not the matter of consideration whether any direction should be passed for compliance of the provisions of 158(1) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in this application. It appears that the Hon 'ble Division Bench of the Hon 'ble Court, Calcutta in 2010 (1) T.A.C. 104 (cal) has given necessary directions upon the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police to ensure compliance of Section 158(1) and 158(6) of the said Act. If those provisions are not complied with, proper steps may be taken against the police authorities in accordance with law. But, at present, I am concerned whether the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the said portion of the order.;