Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) Apathy or sympathy when pitted against the statutory right cannot be a factor in determining the compensation claimed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is not the duty of the Court to legislate and incorporate something into the statute book which is conspicuously absent therein. It is a primary duty of the Court to interpret the legislative provisions firstly from the use of the words and expressions and given it to its normal meaning or the specific meaning in the event such word or expressions are defined therein. The canon of interpretation has expanded its horizon in bringing the external aid which is again dependant upon avowed purpose and object of the Statute. While interpreting the expression or word it is a paramount duty of the Court to bear in mind the nature of the legislation and its extended benefit. The welfare piece of legislation always receives interpretation of the words and expressions used therein to the benefit of the class of the people for which the same is enacted. The strict interpretation which frustrates the object and purpose of such beneficial or social welfare legislation should be guarded against.
(2.) Keeping in mind the broad prospect underlining the concept of interpretation adopted by the Court, let us examine whether the claim petition under Section 163A of the said Act deserves to be allowed or not.
(3.) The undisputed facts evident from the claim petition filed by the claimants / respondents are that the victim driver died in the driver's cabin of the truck while coming to Kolkata in sleeping condition and his body was recovered by the Police on the next morning. The post mortem report was conducted and post mortem report revealed the cause of death to be intra cerebral hemorrhage which is ante-mortem in nature. It is the uniform stand of the parties that the deceased driver was sleeping in a driver's cabin of the truck parked in a petrol pump and was found dead on the floor of the driver's cabin.;