Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) I.A. No. 8715 of 2013 has been filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay in presenting the appeal against the Judgment/Award dated 21.08.2013 passed by Principal District Judge -cum -Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No. 28 of 2008. The claimants/respondents have put their appearance but the owner/driver did not appear. Having heard the parties and on being satisfied with the grounds taken in the instant Interlocutory Application, the delay in filing instant appeal is hereby condoned. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8715 of 2013 is hereby allowed. M.A. No. 368 of 2013 This appeal has been preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the Judgment/Award dated 21.08.2013 passed by Principal District Judge -cum -Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No. 28 of 2008. The appellant has not laid any claim against owner and driver of the vehicle rather the appeal has been preferred on being aggrieved with the compensation amount awarded and the calculation made thereof. In that view of the matter, I feel inclined to hear the appeal even in absence of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
(2.) The appellant has assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that the deceased -driver of the Dumper bearing registration No. JH - 09H - 0527 himself was negligent. He got down from the Dumber for having tea but he did not take care to park the Dumper at the side of the road and he had not taken precaution while crossing the road. Furthermore, the employment of the deceased -driver was that of temporary in nature but the Tribunal has considered the future prospects and increased the monthly income up to 30% for reaching to just and reasonable compensation. The learned Tribunal has not even taken pain to draw a single line with respect to Exhibits -A and B which has been proved by the appellant -Insurance Company.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents has opposed the prayer and submitted that driver of the offending Dumper bearing registration No. JH 09D 8338 was rash and negligent in driving and without considering the fact that the deceased was crossing the road, he dashed him, as a result the deceased driver sustained injury and died. In no imagination it could be a case of contributory negligence. To oppose next point raised by the appellant, the counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that unfortunate deceased driver was in receipt of letter from CCL for his employment and he was likely to join his new assignment which was of permanent nature but due to sad demise, he could not avail opportunity. The Tribunal has rightly considered the future prospects and decided just and reasonable compensation to be paid to the claimants. This appeal has no merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.;