IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.579 of 2009 SMT. SUNITI DEVI @ SMT. SUNITA DEVI Versus BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH & ORS. ----------- 08. 20.05.2010. (1) Heard the learned counsel, Sri Sudhir Bijpuriya on behalf of the appellant and also heard the learned counsel, Sri Rana Randhir Singh on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company. (2) In spite of service of notice on respondent No. 1 & 2, they have not appeared. (3) The claimant, Smt. Sunita Devi @ Suniti Devi filed M.V. Claim Case No.12 of 1997 alleging that while her son Manish Kumar was going on the scooter No.BR-11-9287 on 31.12.1996, the truck bearing registration No.BR-19-7671 dashed him as a result of which Manish Kumar died at the spot. The pillion rider Ram Bahadur Yadav sustained serious injury. (4) Regarding accident, F.I.R. was also lodged which was registered under Supaul P.S. Case No.393 of 1996 under Section 279, 338 304 (A) of the I.P.C. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet. The registration number of the truck involved in the accident was mentioned as BR-19-7671. (5) The Oriental Insurance Company appeared and filed written statement. The owner and driver also appeared. According to the written statement of the owner, the truck, in question, was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company- respondent No.3 herein. In none of the written statement either 2 field by the owner or filed by the Insurance Company; the number of the truck was disputed. In other words, it was admitted fact before the Tribunal that the truck involved in the accident belong to the owner, respondent No.1 and the number of the truck is BR-19-7671. During the trial, the claimant examined 3 witnesses. The pillion rider has been examined as P.W.1. P.W.2 is the claimant herself and P.W.3 brother of the deceased. The claimants also filed the certified copies of F.I.R. of Supaul P.S. Case No.393 of 1996, certified copy of charge- sheet of the said P.S. Case and also post-mortem report and death certificate of Manish Kumar. (6) From perusal of the impugned Judgment, it appears that the learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence of P.W.3, found that the claimants failed to establish the number of the vehicle involved in the accident. The learned Tribunal also held that the claimants have not proved the F.I.R. and charge-sheet etc. (7) It may be mentioned here that as stated above, there was no dispute regarding the number of truck involved in the accident. The accident took place in 2005 and in the oral evidence which was recorded in 2005, i.e., after 10 years, although the witnesses P.W.3 has given the correct number of the truck as 7671 but instead of BR-19-, he mentioned as B.R.U. Only on this ground, his evidence has been discarded. As stated above, the said evidence was recorded after ten years and, 3 therefore, such type of minor discrepancy is bound to occur and it may be because of memory or because of hearing. (8) In a decision reported in 2007 (4) T.A.C. 742 (M.P.), the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that when there is dispute regarding involvement of vehicle, minor discrepancy in the statement of witnesses regarding number of vehicle is immaterial. In the instant case as stated above, there was no dispute regarding identity or number of the vehicle, i.e., truck involved in the accident. In other words, it is admitted that the truck of the respondent No.1 was involved. In my opinion, therefore the admitted facts needs no proof. The minor discrepancies occurring in the evidence of P.W.3 should have been ignored by the Tribunal. (9) So far the question that the F.I.R. and charge-sheet are concerned, the claimants have filed the same before the Tribunal and those documents were available on record but the learned Tribunal has not considered those documents to ascertain the number of truck on the ground that the said documents were not proved according to the Indian Evidence Act. In my opinion, the approach of the learned Tribunal is wrong. The certified copies of the F.I.R. and charge-sheet were filed which are the public documents, therefore, it is not necessary to call for a witnesses to proof those documents and the tribunal was competent to look into those documents. (10) From perusal of the impugned Judgment, it 4 further appears that the learned Tribunal has also not considered about the just compensation on the ground that the claimants failed to establish the number of truck involved in the accident. In my opinion, the learned Tribunal should have decided the just compensation as according to law, the Courts are required to give findings on all issues. (11) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned Judgment and Award are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision according to law, giving findings on all issues. (12) In the result, this Misc. Appeal is allowed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)