- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is at the instance of claimants in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act and is directed against the order dated 17th December, 2004 passed by the learned judge, M. A. C. Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Purulia in M. A. C. Case No. 106 of 2002 thereby dismissing the claim on the ground that the claimants failed to prove that the death caused to the victim was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle concerned.
(2.) THE appellants before us, the widow and the minor son of one Basudeb kumar, since deceased, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act thereby claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest on the allegation that on 1st July, 2002 the victim, who was a sub-agent of Biri binding factory and also a cultivator, was proceeding through the National Highway no. 32 on a bicycle when one Tata 407 van bearing No. BR-20g-1986 came from the opposite direction and dashed the victim by coming from a wrong side with a high speed, as a result, he died on the spot. The driver of the vehicle fled away from the spot and later on, for the said incident, Pindrajora P. S. Case No. 42 of 2002 under Section 279/337/304a of the I. P. C. was started. The post-mortem report of the victim was conducted by Dr. Ratneswar Prasad Verma at Sub divisional Hospital, Chas (Bokaro ). The claimants, therefore, prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the following manner : JUDGEMENT_81_TLCAL0_2008Html1.htm The proceedings were contested by both the owner of the vehicles and the Insurance Company by filing separate written statement. In his written objection, the owner of the vehicle disputed the allegation made in the application and asserted that at the relevant point of time the vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party no. 2 and as such, the owner had no liability whatsoever to pay compensation, if any, to the applicant.
(3.) THE Insurance Company categorically disputed the contentions of the applicant and according to it, there was no cause of action for filing the case and at the same time, for want of jurisdiction the claim-case was not maintainable. The learned Tribunal below by Order No. 23 dated 16th January, 2004, disposed of the question on territorial jurisdiction raised by the Insurance company in favour of the claimants.;