SHRI DAVID KEISHING AND ORS. Vs. TIZETI FARMER UNION, REPRESENTED BY LK YUIREILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants are the appellants before this Court challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short 'MACT'), Manipur dated 30.4.2013 in MACT Case No. 188 of 2008. The appellant No. 1 is the husband of late Smt. Ningyungla Keishing and the rest appellants are the children of the appellant No. 1 and the above deceased wife of appellant No. 1. On 14.10.2008 the deceased Smt. Ningyungla Keishing (wife of the appellant No. 1) was carrying dead body of her sister, Smt. N. Keishing, in a vehicle bearing Regn. No. MN-01/W-1764 along with some others. On the way, accident took place at about 6:30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the said vehicle. The occupants of the vehicle sustained injuries including the deceased and all of them were taken to the nearest Primary Health Centre. On reaching the Primary Health Centre, the deceased was declared dead. Therefore, the appellants filed Claim Application before the MACT, Manipur claiming compensation of Rs. 6 lakh including the award of Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 140 of the M.V. Act, 1988. The said claim application was resisted by the respondents. The respondent No. 3 denied the allegation that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident.

(2.) Mr. S. Abung, learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned award of the Tribunal on the ground that there were sufficient materials available before the Tribunal for the purpose of identification of the deceased and ignoring of such evidence the Tribunal came to a wrong conclusion that there was no evidence to identify the deceased.

(3.) Mr. S. Serto Kom, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company submitted that in absence of post mortem report, the Tribunal could not have come to a definite conclusion with regard to identity of the deceased as well as cause of death and due to latches on the part of the claimants, the identity of the deceased could not be established. Therefore, in absence of any evidence with regard to identity of the deceased, no compensation could be paid and therefore the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim application.