DIPANKAR DATTA,J. - (1.) An award dated September 30, 2013 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Asansol (hereafter the tribunal) passed in M.A.C. Case No. 21 of 2012 is under challenge in this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act) at the instance of National Insurance Company Limited (hereafter the appellant), the opposite party no. 2 before such tribunal.
(2.) It is revealed from the records that the respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal (hereafter the claimants) had the occasion to approach the tribunal owing to the unfortunate death of Bijan Behari Das (hereafter the victim) in a road accident involving the use of two motor vehicles on February 23, 2010. The claimants in the application under Section 166 of the Act, presented on May 4, 2010, happen to be the widow, the children (son and minor daughter) and the mother of the victim. It was pleaded in the claim application that while the victim was returning home late in the evening riding his scooter bearing registration no. WB- 38U/7951, he was dashed from behind by an Ambassador car bearing registration no. JH-10C/5289 (hereafter the offending vehicle). As a result thereof, the victim fell down and sustained severe head injury. He was immediately shifted to the local sub-divisional hospital where he succumbed to his injury. The owner of the offending vehicle and the appellant were impleaded as the opposite parties 1 and 2, respectively. The victim, aged 50 years, was a railway employee and in receipt of Rs. 30,000/- as salary. As such, a sum of Rs. 27,00,000/- was claimed as compensation by the claimants from the opposite parties. The owner of the offending vehicle filed a written objection disowning the claim but thrust it on the appellant. He did not, however, contest the claim application at any subsequent stage. However, the claim application was seriously contested by the appellant by filing a written objection. It pleaded therein that the victim was riding the scooter without wearing a helmet, and that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license; hence, it was not liable to bear compensation. On behalf of the claimants several documents were adduced in evidence apart from the oral testimony of three witnesses, including an eyewitness of the accident. The appellant also led oral and documentary evidence to substantiate that the offending vehicle was driven by a person without having a valid driving license. The tribunal upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence led before it arrived at a finding that the victim died because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. No argument on behalf of the appellant was advanced to the effect that the victim was not wearing a helmet and, therefore, it was a case of contributory negligence; hence, the tribunal did not return any finding in that behalf. It was further found by the tribunal that the offending vehicle was covered by a policy of the appellant. The objection raised by the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license was overruled, albeit without assigning any specific reason. However, having regard to a particular submission made on behalf of the claimants which is noted in the award, it might have crossed the mind of the tribunal that merely because the offending vehicle was driven by one without a valid driving license was not sufficient reason to absolve the appellant of its liability to pay compensation and, consequently, it was held liable. After regarding the age of the victim as 50 years 4 months + in terms of the post mortem report, reckoning Rs. 3,19,762/- as his annual income, applying the multiplier of 11 (as per the Second Schedule of the Act) and deducting on account of personal and living expenses, it was observed that the claimants are entitled to Rs. 23,45,762/- on account of compensation. The widow of the victim was also held entitled to Rs. 5,000/- as loss of consortium. The compensation so assessed was directed to be paid by the appellant in the manner specified within 45 days of receipt of the award, failing which it would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment.
(3.) Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Singh, learned advocate raised the following contentions: (i) The case set up in the claim application should have been completely disbelieved having regard to belated registration of the First Information Report (hereafter the FIR); (ii) The tribunal fell in error in assigning any reason while overruling the objection that the offending vehicle was being driven contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and hence the appellant was liable; (iii) The quantum of death benefits received by the claimants upon death of the victim should have been deducted from the compensation assessed as payable; and (iv) Appointment on compassionate ground of the son of the victim was a relevant factor that the tribunal overlooked in assessing compensation payable to the claimants.;