.. +E.r:: . -2-2004 2. 23.a.ZOO lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKiM OFIDEFR SHEET .Mch.,€... National ln8uratice Col I.ta. Versus Xamla Rat and ot,hera. Order with Signature .No.1 of 200t. Petfroner / Appellant F3espondent Arfut, a I88ve e|rot|c.. The.avarded a-o`lnt depeelt®d with the Ie>tor ^ccld®nt, Clllm€ Tribunal. East a »octh. Cangtok vlthln fo`ir veets ae unaercaken ty the learned co`insel for the arfellaut. List. dr on 23-3-2'004 fo'r -orders-. crf5±Kj 23-2-2004...- None ?ppears.for the appellant. Resportdents 1 ; 2 and 3 have entered appearance through Shri Suraj Chettri and I Shri Ajay Rathi. Advocates and Shri Basant Sharma, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.4. Put up on 12.4.2004 for fixing date •of hearing. ( Fl. K. Ch.ief Justice Off ice Note as to action (if any) taken on Order -._:---Ll----.--i . fu I - .fuottJ9 OJr •,I c:.:-..I! ......:,..:;.:.. ialofler DateofOrder Order with Signature - 3.t/I.I.g/ 2.4.206.4.206-7-ZOO9.8.20 As prayead for, A I cATy'+ cA* dR IJ= + -L£:....'6.+.`:....,.)-/.,, F,#7L,#:=z? 4 /Rit up for hearinc! on 26.4.2004.(R.KPat.rat-) Chief Justice •' ,. A4PutupthisGasebeforetheState '' I.ok Adalat on 22.5.2004 at 10.30 a.in.(R.K.Patra ) Chief .usticeThlematcerva8referredtothe Lck ^d®lat but lt could. not be Bettled. •` I ' ` Therefore put up for h®arlng on 9-8-2004 ae agre,ed tp by the counsel for the partle&. (I.K, P era) Chle£ .u8tlce :. 1§-7-2004. 6. This appeal filed on behalf of the insurer is directed against the order dated 30.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (East and North) Gangtok in MACT Case No.9 of 2003 granting a sum of Rs.7,45,372.00 (minus Rs.50,000/- already received as interim compensation) as compensation in favour of the respondents 1 to 3. 2. I have heard Shri S. Majumdar, learned Counsel for-the appellant and Shri Suraj Chettri and Shri Ajay Rathi for the respondents 1 to 3. 3. The respondent no.1 is the widow of the deceased Fauda Raj Rai who died in a motor accident No. Order Order with Signature on 10.1.2003. Respondent nog. 2 and 3 are their minor daughter and son. The claim petition for compensation was filed on their behalf before the Motor Accident Claims TribLinal alleging that on 10.1.2003, Fquda Raj Rai (hereinafter referred to a§ the deceased) was returning home on foot when he was run over by a vehicle bearing registration number SK03/0132. In the accident, the deceased sustained grievous head injury resulting in his instantaneous death at the spot. On the basis of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held respondents 1 to 3 are entitled to the aforesaid amount as compensation and passed orders accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in absence of a finding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving, the order is vulnerable. I have perused the impugned order and found that no finding has been recorde¢ that on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle, the deceased met with the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that no evidence was led in this regard. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to remit the matter to the Claims Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law by giving opportunity to respondents 1 to 3 to lead necessary evidence. I may mention here that the doctrine of net lpsa fog"!trr which means that the accident tells its own stpry or speaks for itself can be invoked in certain circumstances. The"Claims Tribunal shall bestow its attention to this aspect also. 6. I make it clear that this remand is confined to only for the above purpose. The quantum of °agtcjeonN?£tfeaansyt)° taken on Order \ Serial Date Order with Signature 1',`OfficeNoteasto No. of of action (if any) Order Order taken on order , compensation granted by the Claims Tribunal in favour of respondents 1 to 3 is just compensation which is hereby confirmed. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, I set aside the impugned ol`der and remit the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for fresh disposal aecer:9jgg according to law keeping in view the above direction and the entire exercise shall be done preferably within four weeks' hence. 8. Respondents are at liberty to adduce evidence with regard to the accident. Counsel for the parties have agreed before me that they would appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on thel6th of this month to receive further direction from it. 9. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. Chief JFurfue «L:EL&=ne-!=.iv cj -8,-¢`,'. MJ c4vde*ti C+ circto; 7#tro!%i##:,: