Prasenjit Mandal, J.@mdashThis application is directed against the order dated October 30, 2006 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Second Fast Track Court, Alipurduar in M.A.C. Case No. 74 of 2003.
2. The petitioners of the said motor accident claims case, have filed this application contending, inter alia, that though they have filed all the necessary documents in support of their claim case for compensation, the learned Judge has passed orders calling for record of the G.R. Case No. 1290 of 2003. He has also asked the claimants to furnish necessary information regarding the present position of the G.R. Case No. 1290 of 2003 and to produce the sketch map of the P.O. by November 4, 2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, this application has been preferred.
3. Upon hearing the submission of the learned Advocate of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the scope of this case is very much limited to the fact whether the learned Judge of the learned Tribunal was justified in calling for the G.R. Case No. 1290 of 2003 and to know the present position of the said G.R. case number and also to produce the sketch map of the P.O. by November 4, 2006. Now, the petitioners have claimed the petition by filing the application in the proper proforma and duly supported by the documents as are required under the provisions of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules. In the said Rules, it is nowhere stated that the G.R. Case which arose out of the accident is required. The learned Judge also called for the sketch map which is also not required under the Rules framed by the Government of West Bengal at all. The decision of Primla Devi and Ors. v. State of Punjab reported in 1994 (2) T.A.C. 557 clearly lays down that no important should be given on the sketch map which is generally prepared by the I.O. to show the rough position relating to the place of occurrence and the surrounding circumstances.
4. On the other hand, Mr. K.K. Das, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, submits that according to the decisions reported in 2010 (1) T.A.C. 104 (cal),
5. With due respect to Mr. K.K. Das, I am of the view that it is not the matter of consideration whether any direction should be passed for compliance of the provisions of 158(1) and 158(6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in this application. It appears that the Hon''ble Division Bench of the Court in 2010 (1) T.A.C. 104 (cal) has gave necessary directions upon the Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police to ensure compliance of Section 158(1) and 158(6) of the said Act. If those provisions are not complied with, proper steps may be taken against the police authorities in accordance with law. But, at present, I am concerned whether the learned Tribunal was justified in passing the said portion of the order.
6. Upon due consideration of the relevant provision of Rules 329 and 330 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, I am of the view that the learned Judge was not required at all to call for the said G. R. Case and the sketch map. Therefore, the said portion of the impugned order cannot be sustained. It must be set aside.
7. Accordingly, this application succeeds. The portion of the impugned order by which the learned Judge called for the G. R. Case No. 1290 of 2003 and the production of the sketch map and also to furnish information regarding the present position of the G.R. Case No. 1290 of 2003 is hereby set aside. The learned Judge shall proceed with the said claim case from the stage of argument. The application is disposed of in the manner indicated above.
8. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
9. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.
