Talukdar, J. - (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was delivered by : -Fast Track, Second Court, Alipurduar (functioning as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in connection with MAC Case No. 35/05 returned her verdict on 28.2.2007.
(2.) IT has been carried at the instance of the Appellants, who were the Claimants before the learned Tribunal for realising compensation in respect of the death of their son due to motor cycle accident, occasioned by the offending vehicle of Opposite Party No. 2. The Tribunal after examining five witnesses, who were the Parents of the deceased (the Appellants - P.W.1 and P.W.2), an eyewitness (P.W.3), a Sahayika of the Sishu Shiksha Kendra (P.W.4) and a local member of Gram Panchayat (P.W.5), came to the conclusion"..........The petitioners have failed to dispel the could that his cast upon the real identity of Biplab and they are the parents of a boy, named Biplab Das, who died in a road accident on 30.12.2000, caused by a motor bike........................". Reasons in support of her conclusion as understood from our foray of the Judgment and Order under Appeal in the light of the submissions made by Shri Banerjee in support of the Appeal and Shri Bose for the Company can be set out briefly which is as follows : (a) failure to prove the original Post-mortem Report, (b) no proof worthwhile the name having been forthcoming that the Appellants were the Parents of the deceased Biplab, (c) P.W.4, Minoti Mondal being a helper of the Sishu Shiksha Kendra (SSK) having produced the School Register pertaining to the education of the deceased, Biplab in the said centre which was at the first instance discrepant with the year of his study and that as to why the helper and not the Headmistress came forth with a Register, (d) P.W. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were mutually contrary of each other and the fulcrum episode of the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased boy had been violently contradicted through these evidence, (e) her perception of the demeanour of P.W.1 in course of her evidence when she faltered while giving out the names of her other existing children and the mention of the deceased as Utpal but in subsequent stage resiling from the same. This is the pith and substance of the order, which persuaded the learned Tribunal to have dismissed the claim petition.
(3.) IN the light of the broad contours thereof we would now advert to the submissions made by Shri Banerjee for the Appellants. Shri Banerjee was of the view that the Post-mortem Report was marked 'X' for identification as the original was not available due to the fact that the same was filed in connection with the proceedings of G.R. Case No. 02/05, pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipurduar in connection with the case lodged by P.W.2, Father of the deceased child under Sections 279/337/338/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Shri Banerjee would further submits that even though the learned Tribunal had taken exception of the demeanour on account of the fact that P.W.1 had been faltering in her evidence while giving out the name of her children. It should not be lost sight of the fact that it was the trauma on account of the loss of the child of P.W. 1 that had made her remorse and may be slow in giving out the name of her other children.;