The main legal point established is the requirement for claimants to prove rash and negligent driving for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The instant appeal arises out of a judgment dated June 30, 2016 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court at Alipore-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in MACC No. 6 of 2010. The claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 81,20,000/- towards loss of dependency on account of death of one Avishek Chakraborty alias Abhishek Chokravarty.

2. In the claim petition, the claimants have alleged that on January 27, 2010 while Abhishek Chakraborty (hereinafter referred to as the 'victim') was riding his motor cycle and was moving through the road below the railway bridge in front of Airoli Sector-5, T-junction Navi Mumbai, under Police Station Rabella, a private bus (hereinafter referred to as an 'offending vehicle') colluded with the motor cycle. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. As a result of such accident, the victim suffered severe injury on his person. He was taken to hospital where he succumbed to his injury on the same day at about 12:00 Hrs. It was further stated in the claim petition that the victim was engaged as a senior relationship manager with Vantage Insurance Broker Private Ltd. The monthly salary of the said victim was Rs. 50,514/-. At the time of accident, the victim was aged about 29 years. The claim petition was filed by the wife, minor daughter, mother and father of the victim.

3. The owner of the vehicle was impleaded as the Opposite Party No.1. In spite of service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle chose not to contest the said proceedings and as such the proceeding went ex parte against him.

4. The Insurance Company contested the said motor accident claim case by filing a written statement denying the allegations contained in the claim petition. In the said written statement, it was contended by the Insurance Company that the learned court below lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the claim petition as the place of accident, office of the insurer of the offending vehicle, residence of the victim, his wife and daughter and also the working place of the deceased are in Mumbai.

5. It was further contended in the said written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive such type of vehicle. The accident occurred due to composite negligence. The amount of claim is excessive, exorbitant and baseless. The Insurance Company also obtained leave under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to avail larger defence on merits. During the pendency of the claim petition, the mother of the victim died and her name was expunged from the claim case. The learned judge of the court below allowed the claim case by directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 81,20,000/- together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of filing of claim case till such payment is made to the claimants.

6. Mr. Rajesh Singh learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, assailed the impugned judgment on the following grounds:

1. The claimants have failed to prove that the accident was caused by rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle.

2. The learned Tribunal while holding that the evidence of PW3 i.e. the eye-witness, did not inspire confidence of the Tribunal yet allowed the claim petition directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation.

3. The name of the PW3 i.e. eye-witness did not appear in the FIR.

4. Even assuming that the claimants could prove that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, the amount of compensation granted is an exorbitant one as the victim was not in permanent service at the relevant point of time.

5. The award of additional compensation of 50% on future prospect was an erroneous one and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. Mr. Singh submitted that the claimants had an option either to p