The court emphasized the discretion of the tribunal/courts in assessing compensation under Section 168 of the 1988 Act and held that delay caused by a party in concluding the proceedings should not be used to deny relief to the claimant.

Dipankar Datta, J.

FMAT 419 of 2017 is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the 1988 Act) at the instance of the insurer/opposite party no. 2 (hereafter the appellant) in M.A.C. Case No. 51 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track 8th Court, Alipore (hereafter the tribunal). It is directed against the award dated January 27, 2017 passed by the tribunal, whereby a sum of Rs. 1,22,62,015/- was awarded to the claimant (hereafter the first respondent) as monetary compensation on account of death of her only brother in a motor vehicular accident, together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till date of actual payment. The compensation was directed to be paid within 2 months from date.

2. CAN 4022 of 2017 is an application for stay of operation of the award filed in the said appeal.

3. At the first hearing of CAN 4022 of 2017 on July 13, 2017, Mr. Mondal, learned advocate for the first respondent submitted that a pure question of law is involved in the appeal and accordingly, he urged us to decide the appeal finally dispensing with all formalities. Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant did not object. Having satisfied ourselves that the appellant had put in Rs. 25,000/- being the statutory deposit, we proceeded to hear the parties on the merits of the appeal.

4. In course of hearing Mr. Singh and Mr. Mondal, we perceived the involvement of a question of law of substantial importance in the appeal. After they had concluded their arguments, we requested Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned senior advocate to assist us as amicus curiae. As is usual, we have benefited from his erudite arguments and at the outset record our sincere appreciation for the invaluable service rendered by him at our request.

5. The undisputed facts giving rise to the appeal in a nutshell are these. The first respondent's elder brother (hereafter the deceased) passed away on April 23, 2011, upon sustaining multiple injuries on his head and abdomen in a road accident involving the use of a motor cycle. An application under section 166 of the 1988 Act was presented before the tribunal by the deceased's father (hereafter the original claimant) on December 6, 2013. It was pleaded in the claim application that the deceased was a qualified cinematographer and that his net income for the financial year 2011-12 was Rs. 10,89,069/-. He died a bachelor at the age of 39 years 5 months leaving his parents, who were totally dependent on him. However, the mother of the deceased could not bear the mental shock after hearing her son's death and passed away a few days thereafter.

6. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the application, the original claimant passed away on August 7, 2016. On his death, the first respondent applied for substitution and such application was allowed by the tribunal. The first respondent thus stepped in as the only surviving heir of the original claimant as well as the deceased. The tribunal heard the claim against the owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer. It framed 8 (eight) issues upon recasting the issues originally framed. Bearing in mind substitution as referred to above, the issue as to whether the first respondent could claim compensation upon maintaining the claim application was considered in the light of section 166 of the Act. Relying upon the decisions reported in 1991 ACJ 767 (Narinder Kaur v. State of Himachal Pradesh) and 2010 ACJ 401 (Sarama Das v. Bhutnath Ghorai) as well as section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter the CPC), the tribunal proceeded to hold that the first respondent as the sole surviving heir and legal representative of the deceased could maintain the application under section 166 of the 1988 Act and claim compensation. Insofar as the other issues are concerned, the tribunal upon discussion of the evidence that was led returned finding to the effect that the deceased was indeed a