The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the maintainability of the claim application in light of Section 53 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, and the entitlement to interest from the date of filing the claim application.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. MAC Case No. 112 of 2010, registered on an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereafter the 1988 Act), was decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alipore, South 24 Parganas (hereafter the MACT) by an award dated June 27, 2012. The claimants in such case have carried the said award in appeal before us under Section 173 of the 1988 Act.

2. The husband of the appellant no. 1 and the father of the appellants 2 and 3 (hereafter the victim) in the evening of February 4, 2005, was walking down Deshapran Sasmal Road, Kolkata from south to north direction. He was knocked down by a Tata Sumo (hereafter the offending vehicle) from behind, which allegedly was being driven at a tremendous speed. The victim sustained severe injury on his person and was immediately taken to M. R. Bangur Hospital, whereafter he was shifted to National Medical College and ultimately admitted at Woodlands Nursing Home (hereafter Woodlands). The victim was discharged from Woodlands on April 20, 2005. As a result of the injury suffered on the head together with other injuries all over his body, the victim completely lost his vision and was rendered physically disabled. In the claim application filed before the MACT under Section 166 of the 1988 Act, the appellants claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.29,00,000/-. Despite service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceedings. However, the insurer of the offending vehicle opposed the claim application by filing written objection. During the pendency of such application, on September 28, 2010, the victim passed away at Durgapur Steel Plant Hospital, Durgapur at the age of 44 years. In the proceedings before the MACT, oral evidence was adduced by five witnesses in support of the claim case which, inter alia, included the appellant no. 1 (PW – 1). The MACT, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence that were adduced, returned a finding that rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle caused the accident that initially resulted in the victim being rendered physically disabled and ultimately caused his death as a consequence thereof.

The MACT, however, did not accept the version of the appellants that the victim had a yearly income of Rs.1,45,406/-; on the contrary, it proceeded to compute loss of dependency treating Rs.1,00,000/- as the yearly income of the victim. Upon deduction of one-third towards personal and living expenses of the victim and selecting the multiplier of 13, the MACT held that the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.8,66,710/-. In addition, Rs.6,49,915/- was awarded towards expenses incurred by the appellants for treatment of the victim at Woodlands as well as other hospitals. It was also the finding of the MACT that the offending vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by the insurer and, therefore, it was liable to bear the compensation payable to the appellants. Accordingly, an award was made for an amount of Rs.15,16,625/- to be paid by the insurer within eight weeks, failing which the insurer would be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. from such failure till realisation.

3. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Banik, learned advocate urged several grounds to assail the amount of compensation worked out by the MACT.

4. First, Mr. Banik contended that there was no reason for the MACT not to accept the version of the appellants that the victim was in receipt of Rs.1,45,406/- every year from his employer and hence, compensation should have been worked out upon acceptance of such amount as the yearly income of the victim. Secondly, it was contended that the victim being in permanent employment, the appellants were entitled to addition of 30% of the income towards his future prospects. Thirdly, it was contended that the tribunal grossly erred in not granting any