B. C. Basak, J. - (1.) Records of Lower Court had arrived in February, 1982. The appellant did not comply with the procedure as laid down in the Rule Paper Books were filed in November 1984, that is, about three months after the order was made for expeditious hearing of the appeal. It is stated that the respondent appeared in this appeal in 1981 but in spite of that on behalf of the respondents no step was taken for an early hearing inspite of direction to that effect given by the appeal court in December 1981- The respondents could have taken expeditious steps for an early hearing pursuant to such direction but nothing was done. Even after the paper books were filed, some time was wasted for formal service of the notice on the respondents though it was open to the respondents to waive formal service as they had already entered appearance. Nothing happened for more than two years when on 12th March, 1987 it was directed by a Divisional Bench of this Court that this case would go out of the list as prayed for. It is submitted on behalf of the Insurance Company that was done at the instance of the owner of the vehicle. Be that as it may, the fact is that though the accident took place about eleven years back and though the award was passed more than seven years back and though the amount involved in respect of the widow and five children was Rs. 64,000, apart from a sum of Rs. 5,000 deposited pursuant to the order of this Court, no other amount has yet been received by the widow or the five minor children. Accordingly we direct all parties concerned to expedite the matter so that the amount is received by them as soon as possible. For the purpose of showing bona fide on the part of the Insurance Company, we shall adjourn this case for a fortnight from today when this Court would like to be informed by the Insurance Company whether they propose to pay the amount without any further delay. This matter is heard in part. The amount to be paid by the Insurance Company is to be paid to Mr. S. S. Roy an Advocate of this Court whom we appoint Receiver for this purpose without security and without remuneration. Let a plain copy of the operative portion or this order countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate concerned. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals were set up so that a speedy remedy and may be provided to the victims of an accident or their relatives and appeal against the same to the High Court is provided by section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. In this case the appellant is the widow who had made this application on her behalf and also on behalf of five minor children. The following issues were framed in the case. 1. Is the application maintainable in law 2. Is the application barred by limitation 3. Did the accident take place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the impleaded private bus No. WBR 1192 4. Are the applicants entitled to claim compensation If so, far what amount The shirt facts are as follows :
(2.) The husband of the applicant was a passenger in private bus No. WBR 1192 of route No. 76 which was running from Diamond Harbour to Calcutta. Allegation is that it was driving at a great speed and suddenly it fell into a ditch on the western side of the road, that is, on the left side. Two persons were killed and several injured Accident is admitted but negligence was disputed. The learned Tribunal found in favour of the applicant. Neither the driver nor any one else gave evidence in support of their defence. On this point the learned Judge decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the applicant. So far as the issue No. 3 is concerned the learned Judge concluded that the accident in which the two persons lost their lives was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus in question by its driver and accordingly it was decided in favour of the claimant.
(3.) So far as the issue No. 4 is concerned, the learned Judge went into the matters in details. On the question of quantum the learned Judge recorded that the applicant, who was the widow of deceased Gadadhar Maity, had five minor children. The learned Judge took into consideration the earning of the deceased, the age of the applicant and upon certain calculation on the basis of materials in question came to the conclusion that Rs. 72,000 will be proper compensation. A sum of Rs. 8,000 was deducted from the sum on account of gratuity and Provident Fund money. After deducting the sum of Rs. 8,000 from the total entitlement of Rs. 72,000 the learned Judge arrived at a figure of Rs. 64,000 and made award for Rs. 64,000. Being aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. A cross-objection also been filed and we are told that the owner of the vehicle has also preferred an appeal which is not before us. The learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal has very fairly made it clear that he does not challenge the finding of the Tribunal on any other point excepting on the ground of section 95 (2-b) (ii)(4). The said section 95 is set out herein below.;