IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.2 of 2002 BHAGWATI DEVI & ORS Versus SIB KUMAR DAS & ORS For the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 : Shailendra Kumar, Advocate. ----------- 8. 20.08.08. The order under challenge is dated 4th September, 2001 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 84/1998/Tr. No. 20 of 1999 by the 3rd Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhagalpur, whereby and whereunder he has dismissed the claim petition filed by Bhagwati Devi and others. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company. No body appears for the respondent Sib Kumar Das, who happens to be owner of Vehicle No. ASO 1-E-4427. It has been alleged that the deceased driver of the Truck bearing registration No. BR-13-8443 was driving his truck very slowly and cautiously on 5.6.1998 and noticed that Truck No. ASO1-E-4427 was driven very rashly and negligently from the opposite direction and as such the deceased Tuntun Rai stopped his truck in left side and was waiting for passing of the truck coming from the opposite direction. But the truck bearing registration No.ASO1-E-4427 dashed against the truck of the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained serious injuries. Thereafter, he was brought to Baisi Hospital in the District-Purnea and while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to injuries. The Truck No. ASO1-E-4427 was insured with respondent-Insurance Company, namely; National Insurance Company Ltd. The respondent-Insurance by filing his written statement contested the claim of the deceased, wherein it was averred that drivers of both the 2 Trucks in head on collusion lost their lives in the aforesaid accident. The Claimants were entitled to lay their claim under Workmen’s Compensation Act from their own employer and for that not a single Insurance Company would be held responsible rather both the drivers of the trucks were equally responsible. It was also averred that purposely owner and Insurer of the trucks where the deceased was employed was not made a party. Issues were framed, which was decided. On consideration of facts and circumstances, evidence and application of relevant clause, learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal came to the conclusion that driver of the Truck bearing No. ASO1-E-4427 could not be held sole responsible for having driven the truck rashly and negligently causing death of the deceased and claim for the claimants would come under Workmen’s Compensation Act. Learned counsel for the appellants and respondent Insurance Company have been heard together. Having considered their submissions and materials brought on the record, it is manifest that the driver of the Truck No. ASO1-E-4427 died on the spot whereas deceased Tuntun Rai died in the hospital after sometime. Both the trucks due to head collusion were engulfed with heavy fire it can not be certified that deceased Tuntun Rai was not at all responsible for collusion with the truck coming from the opposite side. Moreover income of the deceased has not been supported from any document or even examination of the employer or any office bearers of the employer has supported the facts. There is also no such document in respect of income of the deceased. 3 The charge sheet of the police investigation in respect of institution of F.I.R. of both the trucks is also not on the Lower Court Record so as to ascertain the involvement of the drivers. In the facts and circumstances, after setting aside the aforesaid order, this appeal is disposed of with a direction, it to be sent back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal should decide the claim after submissions of points raised there within six months from the date of communication of this order after avoiding unnecessary adjournments. The petition filed under Section 140 of M.V. Act should also be disposed of within shortest possible time from the date of communication of this order, preferably within two months. m.p. (Subash Chandra Jha, J)