Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) A claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) was presented on February 25, 2011 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Burdwan by Smt. Pratima Barick, giving rise to M.A.C. Case No. 12/41 of 2011. The case pleaded therein reveals that on November 6, 2010, at about 01.00 hours, the claimant's son, Nil Ratan Barick (hereafter the victim) was returning home along with his friends after witnessing Kali Puja and while they reached near Sialdanga More at G.T. Road, suddenly a vehicle driven at very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the victim and his friend, Sayantan Chakraborty, as a result whereof the victim fell down and sustained severe bleeding injuries all over his body and died at the spot. At Sl. No. 15 of the relevant form for filing claim petition, the claimant had mentioned the registration number of the offending vehicle, i.e. WB-42B/0859 (Fiat Car). According to her, it was owned by a Yakub Mallick, the respondent no. 1. The insurer of the vehicle, National Insurance Company Limited, was impleaded as respondent no. 2. It is also revealed that the victim, 28 years of age, was an assistant teacher in a school whose monthly income was Rs.24,184/-. The claimant being the mother of the victim, accordingly, prayed for Rs. 29,00,000/- (Rupees twenty nine lakh) on account of compensation.
(2.) The respondent no. 1 did not contest the claim petition by filing written statement despite service of notice. The respondent no. 2, obtaining leave to contest the claim petition, filed written statement denying the material allegations levelled in the claim petition. Delayed registration of FIR was raised as the first point in defence for persuading the tribunal not to accept the claim as genuine and bona fide. It was also alleged that no want of due care and caution could be attributed against the driver of the vehicle and that there was no fault or negligence on his part. Finally, it was urged that the alleged incident was caused due to contributory negligence on the part of the victim himself. It was, accordingly, pleaded that the claim ought to fail.
(3.) To prove the claim, the claimant examined herself as PW-1. The Headmaster of the school where the victim was employed as teacher was examined as PW-2 to prove the employment of the victim as well as proof of certificate dated November 23, 2010 (Ext. 10) issued by him (PW-2), where from it would reveal that the gross pay of the victim, as on November 23, 2010, was Rs.24,184/- and net pay Rs.19,014/-, after deduction of Rs.5,170/- [on account of GPF - Rs.5000/-, G.S.L.I. - Rs.40/- and Professional Tax Rs.130/-]. An eye-witness to the accident, Pulak Das, was examined as PW-3. He deposed that the victim was dashed by a vehicle bearing registration no. WB-42B/0859; that, it was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver thereof; and that, the said vehicle or its driver was responsible for the death of the victim.;