Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties.
(2.) This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimants assailing the judgment and order dated 11.7.2003 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at the City Civil Court at Calcutta in M.A.C. Case No. 164 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the application under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as was filed by the claimants claiming compensation due to the death of Bablu Das was dismissed on the ground that the provision of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which was inserted by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred for brevity as 'the Act 54 of 1994') was repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act, 2001 being Act 30 of 2001 and as such on the date of adjudication there was no provision like section 163-A in the parent Act, that is, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, from the judgment under appeal it appears that learned Tribunal below held that there was an accident, the offending vehicle was responsible for such and death of Bablu Das caused due to such accident and also further finding that the claimants are legally entitled as legal heirs to file the claim application. The learned Tribunal below did not quantify the compensation amount because as per its views the case was otherwise not maintainable because the provision of section 163-A stood repealed by Act 30 of 2001 as aforesaid. The learned advocate for the appellants before this court has argued not only on the issue of the erroneous finding of the learned Tribunal below that section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stood repealed by the said Repealing and Amending Act but also on the point of quantification of the compensation amount by placing the material evidence on record that is the oral evidence of the PW 1, the widow of the victim.
(3.) Learned advocate for the respondent insurance company very frankly has submitted that the learned Tribunal below was wrong in its finding that section 163-A of the said Act stood repealed. But, however, on the question of quantum, the learned advocate for the respondent insurance company simply has opposed with reference to the prayer of imposition of interest on the compensation amount if it is quantified by this appeal court.;