BHATTACHARYA, ACJ.

(1.) These three appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act along with a cross-objection filed by the respondent in the third one mentioned above were heard analogously as those arose out of proceedings for compensation for the deaths of three different victims who died of the same accident. In the first two matters the daughter of the two victims filed the application under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation for the death of her parents while in the third matter, the parents and the son of one Manoj Kr. Jash, the victim, who was also a co-passenger of the selfsame vehicle filed the application for compensation.

(2.) Those proceedings gave rise to three different Motor Accident Claim Cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and three different awards were passed separately on the basis of different sets of evidence adduced by the parties.

(3.) We, therefore, propose to deal with these appeals separately one after the other.

(4.) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company and is directed against an award dated 19th March, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Third Court, Burdwan in M.A.C. Case No. 60 of 2006 thereby disposing of the said proceeding by awarding a sum of Rs.18,47,500/-as compensation with a direction upon the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the appellant before us, to pay the above mentioned amount within two months from the date of award along with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till date of payment.

(5.) Being dissatisfied, the Insurance Company has come up with the present appeal.

(6.) The facts giving rise to filing of the application for compensation out of which the present appeal arises may be summed up thus : On 25th March, 2005, at 9 P.M., the victim, the father of the applicant, who was the owner and also the driver of a Maruti Van, bearing No. WB /40E/ 9274 was proceeding from Budbud after crossing Burdwan towards Panagar on NH-2, when one truck bearing No. WB 39/1364 was parked on the wrong side of the said National Highway almost covering metal portion of the road near Pepsi gate without any light. While the Maruti Van was overtaking the said parked truck, one unknown truck, coming from the opposite direction, had dashed the said Maruti Van, as a result of which, the victim, the father of the claimant could not control his vehicle and had collided with the standing truck No. W.B. 39/1364 and due to rash and negligent parking of the said truck on the road, the accident occurred resulting in the death of the victim on the spot. In this proceeding, the owner of the stationary was made party along with its Insurance Company. The victim was aged 49 years at the time of death and basic pay of the victim was Rs. 16,400/- along with other pecuniary benefits.

(7.) The owner of the stationary truck did not contest the proceeding but the appellant, the New India Assurance Company Ltd., contested the proceeding with the leave of the Court under Section 170 of the Act and filed the written statement denying the material allegations made in the application for compensation. According to the Insurance Company, there was no fault or negligence on the part of the driver of the truck being WB 39/1364 for the accident and as such, the appellant was not liable to pay any amount of compensation for the death of the owner and driver of the Maruti Van.

(8.) At the time of hearing, the claimant herself, one Mrinmoy Nandy, a co-employ of the victim, and one Rakesh Kr. Sharma, an alleged eyewitness of the accident, gave evidence on behalf of the claimant. Those witnesses were cross-examined by the Insurance Company but no independent evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company.

(9.) The learned Tribunal below by the award impugned herein has held that the death of the victim occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck No. WB 39/1364 and consequently, awarded a sum of Rs. 18,76,500/