Amitav Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment/order dated 11.05.2012, passed by Additional District Judge -I cum Additional M.A.C.T., Singhbhum West at Chaibasa in Compensation Case Nos. 28 and Compensation Case No. 27 of 2008 whereby the claim application of the claimants have been dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the claimants has submitted that it is evident from the case of the claimants that the deceased Ganesh Mohanty and his brother -in -law Surjeet Beura were waiting near Chandro Line Hotel by the side of the motorcycle. At that time, Truck No. CG -04G -9858, being driven rashly and negligently, hit them due to which they sustained injury and succumbed to their injury on the way to the hospital. That for the said accident, Jhinkpani Police Station Case No. 14 of 2008 was registered under sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by relying on the argument pressed by the respondent -Insurance Company wherein reliance was placed on the first information report which was registered on the fardbeyan of Raju Beura. That the learned Tribunal had relied on the contents of the first information report that both the deceased were riding on motorcycle, which tried to overtake Truck No. CG -04G -9858 from behind due to which they alongwith the motorcycle were trapped under the rear wheels of the truck and sustained injuries, resulting in their death. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the informant -Raju Beura has been examined as A.W. -3 and he had categorically stated that both the deceased were standing near the motorcycle at Chandro Line Hotel and at that time the driver of the Truck No. CG -04G -9858 dashed both the deceased persons due to which both of them were dragged for some distance by the truck. That the Truck was being driven rashly and negligently which was the cause of the injuries resulting in death of both the deceased. He has categorically stated that the police had taken his signature on blank paper in the hospital and since he was in a state of shock he had put his signature on the blank paper, on the assurance of the police, that without fardbeyan the deceased would not be entitled to any compensation. It is submitted that likewise A.W. -4 an eye -witness had stated in his deposition that while he was taking breakfast sitting outside the Chandro Line Hotel, he saw that both the deceased were standing near the motorcycle and at that time the offending vehicle hit them and dragged them along with the motorcycle for some distance. Both the deceased sustained serious injury and they died on the way to the hospital and the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. It has also been submitted that charge -sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending Truck No. CG -04G -9858, under sections 279 & 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code which shows that the deceased died due to the accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the truck.
(3.) THAT the Trial Court without appreciating the evidences has dismissed the claim application of the claimants only on the basis of fardbeyan. It is urged that the impugned order is fit to be set aside.;