- (1.) The defect pointed out by the Stamp Reporter may be ignored inasmuch as all the persons mentioned in the memorandum of appeal figured in the claim application.
(2.) Instead of disposal of the application, we propose to hear out the appeal itself by treating it as on day's list with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is at the instance of the claimants in a proceeding purportedly under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and is directed against an award dated 21st July, 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj, in M.A.C. Case No. 42 of 2003 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the said application by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,65,000/ in favour of the claimants with a direction upon the two Insurance Companies to pay the said amount in the ratio of 75% : 25% according to the negligence of the drivers of the two offending vehicles. The Insurance Companies were directed to pay such amount within sixty days from the date of award with further stipulation that in default, both the Insurance Companies should be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim-application (11.2.2003). Being dissatisfied, the claimants have come up with the present appeal.
(3.) At the very outset, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Companies have taken a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the application under Section 163A of the Act alleging that the claimants having asserted that the victim had monthly income of Rs. 3,500/ -, the application under Section 163A of the Act was not maintainable because such benefit is given only to those claimants whose predecessor had annual income of less than Rs. 40,000/- per annum. After going through the materials on record, we, however, find that although the proceeding was described as one under Section 163A of the Act, the learned Tribunal specifically framed issue as to whether the drivers of the two vehicles involved were negligent and the parties led evidence and even argument was advanced at the time of trial on such issue. It further appears that the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Companies even admitted the negligence on the part of the drivers of the offending vehicles.;