Maharaj Sinha, J. - (1.) This is an appeal against this Judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court. Bankura. dated 12th May, 2003. in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 37 of 2002/71 of 2001 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The wife of the deceased victim, namely the first appellant herein, Smt. Mithu Rani Sardar, her mother-in-law and her two minor sons and one minor daughter were the claimants before the claims Tribunal who are also the appellants in this appeal. By the said Judgement the claim of the appellants herein for compensation for the death of one Pasupati Sardar, the husband of the first appellant Smt. Mithu Rani Sardar and the son of the second appellant and the father of the third, fourth and the fifth appellants herein was rejected by the Claims Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment the above appellants preferred this appeal.
(2.) The short facts are that the said Pasupati Sardar met with a motor accident on 3 February 2001 in the morning at about 7 A.M. on a village road called Bamnikuli within the police station Indupur, in the District of Bankura. As appears from the evidence of the wife of the deceased victim, the first appellant herein, the said Pasupati used to work as a daily labourer at the site of stone crasher at a place called Bamungram. On 3 February 2001 when Pasupati was going to work at, the said site he was hit by the offending vehicle as a result whereof he sustained severe injuries. He was taken to Bankura Medical College Hospital but eventually on 12 February 2001 he died after having fought a battle for his life at the said hospital. The offending vehicle was a tractor which was pulling a trailer. Both the tractor and the trailer were duly registered with the registration No. W.B. 687699 (tractor) and W.B. 67/1506 (trailer) respectively. The offending vehicle was also covered by a valid insurance policy at the time when the said accident took place. It is also an admitted position, however, that the insurance company, the first respondent herein, paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the appellants as the insurance company was held liable to pay such compensation in a proceeding under section 140 of the 1988 Act on no fault principle.
(3.) It is to be pointed out. however, at this stage that apart from the first appellant, the wife of the deceased victim and the said Sudhangsu Roy who claimed to be the eye-witness of the accident, neither the insurance company nor the owner of the offending vehicle nor the driver of the said tractor gave or led any evidence whatsoever. The Claims Tribunal, therefore, had to give its Judgment on the basis of the evidence of the above two persons, the Claim petition and the written statement or the written statements of the insurance company and the documentary evidence, namely the FIR and one post-mortem report of the deceased victim.;