Prabir Kumar Samanta, J. - (1.) This miscellaneous appeal arises out of a judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal being the 2nd Court of Additional District Judge, Murshidabad at Behrampur on an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 filed by the claimant/appellant. By the aforesaid judgment and order the learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the said petition thereby refusing to make an award of compensation in favour of the claimant-appellant on the death of his minor son in a motor accident.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the aforesaid claim case may be summerised as under : Sajan Mondal, the deceased son of the claimant, on 19th April, 1988 was driving a motor cycle with two other pillion riders who were his cousins. At about 5.15 a.m. while he was proceeding from Bhakuri towards Hariharpara along Behrampur Hariharpara Road, he was suddenly hit by a mini truck. bearing registration No. WB 57/3251 which came from the opposite direction with high speed. As a result the victim along with the pillion riders received severe multiple injuries on their persons. The victim was taken to Behrampur New General Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on the night of the self-same day.
(3.) In support of the claim petition, the claimant/appellant father and his elder son have deposed. It has transpired from the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses and materials on record that the victim was a student of class IX and aged about 15 years on the fateful day. He was riding motor cycle No. WB-58/3792 which belonged to his mother i.e. the wife of the claimant/appellant. The claimant/appellant has not been able to produce any document to show that the victim had any driving licence to drive the said motor cycle. The elder brother of the victim (P.W.2) is the eye witness to the incident as he was coming by a trekker just about 100 or 150 cubits behind the offending vehicle, as stated by him. It has been proved in his evidence that the aforesaid offending vehicle (mini truck) was being driven in a very rash and negligent manner and had hit the motor cycle which was being driven along the left side of the road. This finding of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver has not been questioned by the insurer respondent in this appeal. The involvement of the offending vehicle (mini truck) in the said accident and its insurance cover with insurer respondent are not in dispute as the claimant/appellant has already been granted statutory compensation of Rs. 50,000/- under no fault liability as per the provisions of Section 140 of the said Act. .;