IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.460 of 2003 SALEHARA DEVI, WIFE OF RAGHUNATH RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHANPAT CHAPRA, P.O. MUSHAHARI, P.S. CHAPRA MUFFASIL(P.O. MUSHEHARI), DISTRICT-SARAN. ………………………………………………CLAIMANT/APPELLANT. Versus 1. RAM ADHAR SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM CHANDRA SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA GANDHI CHAUK, CHAPRA P.S. CHAPRA TOWN, DISTRICT SARAN. 2. MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.MUNICIPAL CHAUK, CHAPRA, SARAN. ……………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES/RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Birendra Nath Mishra, Advocate. For the Insurance Company : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : None. ----------- O R D E R The appellant who is the claimant in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No.56 of 1994/59 of 2002 has preferred this appeal against the dismissal of the said Claim Case vide judgment dated 12.9.2003 and award dated 26.10.2003 passed by Sri Baikunth Nath Shahi, the erstwhile 9th Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal , Saran at Chapra. It appears that two boys, namely, Madhaw Prasad , aged about 16 ½ years and Shailesh Kumar, aged about 7 years met their death as a cause of fatal accident involving the use of a truck bearing Registration No.BRD-1567 owned by Opposite Party-Respondent No.1 and said to be registered with the Insurance Company, impleaded herein as Respondent No.2, the New India Assurance - 2 - Company. The mothers of both the deceased boys are claimants and both the claim cases arising out of the same accident were heard together and disposed of together by the impugned judgment and award. The appellant herein, is the mother of deceased, Madhaw Prasad. The Tribunal by the aforesaid judgment and award, on consideration of the materials available on the record, had held that the claimants had wrongly filed the claim cases against the truck bearing Registration No.BRD-1567 as the truck which was actually involved in the accident has been discharged of the liability and because there was a difference in the registration numbers of the two vehicles as mentioned in the case diary on the one hand and the claim cases on the other. True it is that Claim Cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as “the M.V. Act”) are filed and compensation paid in the event of death or permanent disablement of a person or persons arising out of an accident involving the use of a motor vehicle. It is not in dispute that the two boys Madhaw Prasad and Shailesh Kumar had died in a motor accident. Evidence had been led showing that the involvement of the vehicle in course of the trial but unfortunately a minor defect crept in in asmuch as there was a difference of one alphabet in the registration number of the vehicle concerned. The fardbeyan and the case diary showed that the vehicle which had caused the accident bore the Registration No.BHD-1567 but the claim cases and the evidence adduced point to the fact that the - 3 - motor vehicle which caused the accident leading to the death of the two boys bore the Registration No.BRD-1567. The insurance papers available on the records also show that the insured vehicle bore the Registration No.BRD-1567 and seized vehicle BHD-1567 had been released to the owner under a bond of Rs.3,00,000/-. Ordinarily, a particular motor vehicle is identified not only by its registration number but also by its engine number and chasis number. Therefore, the learned Tribunal before holding that the vehicle BHD-1567 was not involved in the accident leading to the death of the two boys ought to have checked the engine number and chasis number of both the vehicles and refrained from giving a categoric finding based on the difference of one alphabet “H” in BHD and “R” in BRD more so when the figures were identical and the engine numbers were to the contrary. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am left with no option but to allow the appeal and remit the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in terms of the observations made above and to come to a direct conclusion regarding the involvement of the proper vehicle involved in the accident resulting in the death of the two boys. The Tribunal will now issue notice to the parties and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months since this is a case of the year 1994 and had taken the Tribunal almost 9 years for its disposal. By delaying matters, the claimants might have to be deprived of their legitimate right to the sustenance only because of the - 4 - misapplication of the decision or wrong interpretation of the statue or registration number. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the claim case is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh decision. (Abhijit Sinha,J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 29th of April, 2009. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.