The main legal point established in the judgment is the primary liability of the insurer to pay compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, despite the owner's violation of policy conditions. The judgment also emphasizes the concept of 'pay and recover' principle and the calculation of future prospects and conventional heads for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 14th June, 2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Re designated Court, Paschim Medinipur in MACC Case No. 647 of 2011; whereby and whereunder an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was disposed of awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.20,47,900/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the said application till the payment thereof.

2. The facts as evident from the record are that on 12th December, 2009 at about 10-30 p.m. the deceased, namely Navin Kumar along with Ananta Prakash were returning from their place of service to Rupnarayanpur Guest House situated by the side of National Highway–6 after taking dinner at Prince-Dhaba met with an accident; as a resultant effect Navin Kumar died on the spot and the other person, namely Ananta Prakash, suffers grievous injuries and was admitted in a Hospital for treatment.

3. It is a specific case of the claimants/respondents that the offending vehicle bearing number WGB-2618 dashed them from behind. As it was coming in a high speed, therefore, the negligence can be attributed to the act of the driver. Since the offending vehicle was covered under the Insurance Policy of the appellant, the claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the said act for Rs.25,00,000/-. It is further stated that the deceased was under permanent employment of Bengal Energy Limited and was getting gross monthly salary of Rs.17,215/-. It is categorically stated therein that the said deceased was 36 years of age on the date of his untimely death and had a bright future in such avocation.

4. It would be evident from the record that not only the Insurance Company, but the driver and owner of the offending vehicle were also impleaded as party and summons were duly sent to them. The owner and the driver did not contest the said proceeding. It is only the Insurance Company, i.e. the appellant, who contested the said proceeding by filing written statement.

5. The substratum of defence so unfurled reveals that a plea of non-involvement of the offending vehicle was initially taken as a defence to the said claimants. However, a leave was also sought in the written statement that in the event any facts is surfaced in course of the proceeding, he may be permitted to file additional written statement. Apropos such leave the Insurance Company/appellant filed the additional written statement taking a plea that the owner of the offending vehicle violated the policy conditions by plying the offending vehicle without any valid permit.

6. It is pertinent to record that the plea of delayed first information report was never incorporated as defence within the four corners of the written statement or the additional written statement filed by the Insurance Company/appellant.

7. On the conspectus of the respective stands taken in the pleadings filed before the Tribunal, the parties went on trial and the claimant no. 1 cited herself as first witness in support of the claim petition. She categorically asserted that her husband met with an accident committed by the said offending vehicle at about 10-30 p.m. on 12th December, 2009 and he was getting monthly salary of Rs.17,215/-. Apart from various documents tendered by her in evidence the certified copy of the first information report was also tendered by her, which was marked Exhibit-1 without objection.

8. Mr. Singh is very much vocal in his submission that it would be evident from Exhibit-1 that the first information report was lodged after a gap of 22 days from the date of accident, which leads to an inference that there was no involvement of the offending vehicle.

9. As indicated hereinabove there was no specific plea taken by the appellant in its pleading nor any evidence was adduced in support of the contention that the lodging of first information report belatedly is fatal, but a presumption is sought to be drawn that the moment the first information report