Talukdar, J. - (1.) TRAPPINGS of neither Title Suit nor a Sessions Trial is available in a Claim Petition under Section 168 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. Imbibed by this sense we would be required to consider the prayer made in Appeal which was dismissed on the circumstance that there was variance between the Post Mortem Report and the name of the daughter of the Appellant who was the victim of the case.
(2.) IT appears that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Islampur (Dist. Uttar Dinajpur) in MAC Case No. 94 of 2007 by its Judgment and Order under Appeal on 28.11.2008 dismissed the Claim Petition filed by the Appellants hereinabove mainly on the ground that barring the only claim of P.W.1 (the Appellant) who is not the witness to the occurrence there was no documentary proof. This has persuaded the Appellants to prefer this Appeal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Appeal as the name of the daughter of the Appellants has been rectified subsequently by Professor Saibal Gupta, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine Department, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital. In order to buttress this point Shri Banerjee in support of the Appeal has placed before us a bunch of papers in respect of a Review Petition by way of which he wanted to put on record the Rectification Memo sent by Professor Saibal Gupta, Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine Department, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital to the aforesaid extent. Inviting our attention to the order-sheet of the Review Petition dated 05.05.2009, Shri Banerjee submitted that he was forced to withdraw the Review Petition as he was made to understand that he would not be permitted to bring any additional documents to prove his case. We do not find that any one has appeared to contest the case on behalf of the respondent although there was notice to the aforesaid effect.
(3.) IN our opinion, on the basis of a plain reading of the Judgment and Order under Appeal the learned Tribunal had proceeded in a closed manner bereft of the broad view required to be taken in this type of proceedings which are not only summary in nature but have a social impact. Shri Banerjee has placed before us the additional papers relating to the clarification made by Professor Saibal Gupta Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine Department, North Bengal Medical College and Hospital with regard to the discrepancy in the name of the deceased daughter of the Appellants and other pertaining documents including the ground of review and the order passed thereon. These are additional materials which would have been considered by us within the ambit of additional evidence to be taken under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This provision, in other words, is akin to the pari materia position of Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We would be well within our power to construe these documents which have been produced by Shri Banerjee by way of incorporating them as additional evidence. For this purpose we must remember that Rule 346 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 authorises the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of a claim case under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There cannot be any dispute in respect of the same. However, to have a wholesome grip of the entire matter we would take a different route. Shri Banerjee has referred to the provisions of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that the Tribunal is required to - "hold an inquiry into the claim". According to Shri Banerjee in spite of the legislative intent provided in Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the learned Tribunal simply picked out the holes in the claim case in stead of addressing itself to the actual issue involved by conducting an inquiry into the main petition. Shri Banerjee has also submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 169 while holding an inquiry, the Tribunal is required to follow a summary proceeding. We find on both these score the submission made by Shri Banerjee has much substance. As found by us earlier that it is not a regular trial which the Tribunal conducts while considering a Claim Petition under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, not only the proceedings are summary in nature but the very social purpose behind the scheme of this Act practically seems to have lost its appeal before the proceeding in the Tribunal.;