The duty of the insurance company to prove breach of policy conditions and the application of the multiplier with reference to the age of the deceased are central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. We would not have taken a painstakingly exercise in deciding the main appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the award dated 19th March, 2016 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Asansol in MACC no. 11 of 2014 having launched solely on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license at the time of occurrence of unfortunate accident to have been settled by the Supreme Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan reported in 2011 (1) T.A.C 867, but we feel to be responsive when the claimants/respondents filed cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging not only the adverse findings made in the impugned award but also application of wrong principles of law in determining the compensation on several heads. Had not the cross-objection become surfaced at the behest of the claimants/respondents, the appeal could have been conveniently decided solely relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Ravi (supra).

2. A succinct prelude to the genesis of the enunciation of law is required to be adumbrated in order to address the points urged before us by the respective counsels which have been either decided or undecided.

3. The facts, so unfurled are that the son of the claimant who was aged about 25 years met with an accident on 13th December, 2012 at 11:35 P.M while riding his motorcycle and returning from his friends house at Benachiti, Durgapur towards his residence through Asansol-Durgapur road (NH2) with the ambassador cab (offending vehicle), who dashed him from behind having driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. The victim sustained multiple grievous injuries and was admitted in SD Hospital, Durgapur and succumbed to such injury. The post mortem was performed on 14th December, 2012 and UD case no. 505/12 was registered on the said date. An FIR was formally lodged on 21st December, 2012 by the claimant/respondent indicating the circumstances in delayed lodging of the FIR. Subsequently the claim petition was filed U/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for Rs. 20,00,000/- as the victim at the time of his death was in permanent employment with Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. as programmer analyst.

4. The insurance company contested the said claim case denying the statements made therein and even went to the extent that the said deceased was an unemployed person and the claimant is not the heirs and the legal representatives and being heptogenerian is not entitled to compensation. It is further stated by the insurance company that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident, nor the driver thereof was driving the same in rash and negligent manner. It is stated in the written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid driving license at the time of the accident and such factum exonerates the insurance company of any liability towards payment of compensation under the insurance policy.

5. On the aforesaid factual matrix as succinctly narrated herein above, the claim petition went in trial and the claimant herself deposed before the Tribunal. She categorically stated that her son died of an accident caused by the offending vehicle and sustained multiple injuries and later on succumbed to the same. She categorically stated that her son was 25 years of age at the time of his death and was a permanent employee of the said company getting a salary of Rs. 24,000/- per month. She further stated that the son had a bright future and his income would have been more in his service career.

6. The eye-witness was also examined as P.W. 2 who narrated the incident happened on 13th December, 2012 and categorically stated that the offending vehicle which was coming in high speed dashed the motor cycle of the victim from his behind resulting into his death. The third witness of the claimant who was a senior executive of the company where t