SATYABRATA SINHA, J. - (1.) THE Appellant in this appeal has questioned the correctness of otherwise of the Award dated 8.4.1996 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 194 of 1994.
(2.) THE fact of the matter is that on 15.1.1994 Sukul Chhetri (victim) was driving the vehicle No. WGY-6219 from Siliguri to Banarhat, when he met with an accident as another vehicle coming from Malbazar side which was being driven at a very high speed dashed with his vehicle. The said Sukul Chhetri died at the spot. The learned Tribunal, having regard to the assertions made in the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues :- (1) Is the petition maintainable ? (2) was the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No. WB-25/1771 ? (3) Is the O.P.-Insurance liable to pay compensation on behalf of the owner ? (4) Are the petitioners entitled to get compensation prayed for ? The learned tribunal arrived at the finding that the deceased Sukul Chhetri died in a motor accident and that he was not at fault.
(3.) MR . K.K. Das, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding a compensation of Rs. 1,77,000/-. The learned Counsel further submitted that having regard to the fact that two vehicles were involved in the accident and the victim having been found not to be at fault, the learned Tribunal below erred in awarding compensation against the appellant. In any event, contends the learned Counsel, the learned Tribunal below could not have granted interest and in support of the said contention strong reliance has been placed upon Supreme Court decision in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1995(1) ACJ 366.;