Subhasis Dasgupta, J. - (1.) This appeal emerges out of the judgment and order dated 3rd October, 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Durgapur awarding compensation to the extent of Rs. 26,37,980/- along with the interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the case till realisation.
(2.) Learned Tribunal Judge elaborately dealt with the factual circumstances leading to the death of the deceased victim by reason of the involvement of the offending vehicle due to its rash and negligent driving. Some crucial facts however, may be adhered to for the decision of this appeal. The deceased victim, a 36 years old man working as an employee of Durgapur Steel Plant having an income of Rs.20,932/- per month suffered death on 18.10.11 at Durgapur Mission Hospital, after being dashed by the offending vehicle on 17.10.11 from behind due to its rash negligent driving, while deceased victim was driving his bike along the left side of the road. The deceased victim suffered serious head injuries and was taken to DSP Hospital, Durgapur and ultimately to Durgapur Mission Hospital, where he succumbed to injuries.
(3.) The appellant/Insurance Company challenged the appeal raising points what had already been agitated before the Tribunal alleging that the deceased victim himself had struck road side tree, while driving his own motor bike negligently, and ultimately suffered death receiving head injuries. More so, admittedly, the offending vehicle, a Maruti Car having certificate of insurance for private purpose was given on hire at the relevant point of time, and thus, the owner of the vehicle had breached the condition of the policy requiring insurer not to indemnify the claimants. In other words, it was contended that the vehicle insured by the appellant was not at all involved in the accident. There was delay in lodging prosecution against the driver of the offending vehicle, which left room for concoction and embellishment in advancing a claim case for the desired purpose. Further challenge raised was that the Insurance Company could not be foisted with the liability to indemnify the claimants for the contravention of Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as neither the driver, nor the owner of the vehicle did necessary compliance with regard to Section 134 of the MV Act within the best possible opportunity soon after the accident was held.;