Samanta & Bose, JJ. - (1.) In presence of the learned advocates for the claimant- appellant and the respondent insurance company this appeal is taken up for disposal along with the application filed by the claimant-appellant for amendment of the claim application by enhancing the claimed amount, as the question involved in this appeal is covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Suniti Mondal v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2005 ACJ 272 (Calcutta).
(2.) The claim case arose out of a motor accident which happened on 20.3.1998 involving the offending vehicle bearing No. MWU 5036 in which the victim girl, named, Shefali Das, succumbed to the injuries suffered in the said accident. The application for compensation was made under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Involvement of the offending vehicle in the said accident was proved before the Claims Tribunal. The claimant appellant also led evidence to the extent that the victim girl was minor being aged about one and half years. No evidence, however, was led on behalf of respondent insurance company to prove otherwise. It was further established in evidence before the Claims Tribunal that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle.
(3.) In this state of affairs, the learned Claims Tribunal determined the compensation payable to the claimant-appellant at Rs. 54,500 without disclosing the reasons on the basis of which the same was determined. It was merely held that in view of the Claims Tribunal, the compensation of Rs. 54,500 would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Claims Tribunal even for the purpose of determination of compensation did not adhere to the structured formula as per the Second Schedule to the Act.;