The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'preponderance of probabilities' standard in assessing claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the need for just compensation for permanent disability and loss of normal life.

JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J.

1. The appellant-insurer, in this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act), has mounted a challenge to an award dated September 12, 2017 passed by the learned Judge, 6th Bench, City Civil Court, Kolkata (the Presiding Officer of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kolkata) while deciding MACC Case No. 458 of 2007. By the award under appeal, the tribunal accepted the claim application presented before it by Sri Subhasis Manna (hereafter the claimant) under section 166 of the Act and proceeded to determine "just compensation" in a sum of Rs. 20,56,800/- for the injury suffered by him in an accident involving the use of a 'Maruti Van' (hereafter the "van"), insured by the appellant. The tribunal directed the appellant to pay the amount assessed on account of compensation by issuing an account payee cheque in favour of the claimant within 60 days, failing which it would carry interest @ 1% per month from the date of presentation of the claim application till realization of the same.

2. CAN 1819 of 2019 is an application for stay filed in the appeal by the appellant. Such application came up for consideration before a coordinate Bench on June 28, 2018. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that execution proceedings had been initiated by the claimant in pursuance whereof the appellant had secured Rs. 46,27,000/- before the tribunal, the coordinate Bench granted liberty to the claimant to withdraw Rs. 10,00,000/- without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the appeal and on the specific undertaking given by him through Mr. Mondal, learned advocate that should the appeal succeed and the award of the tribunal be ultimately set aside, he shall return the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- lakh to the appellant. The coordinate Bench had also directed the Registrar, City Civil Court to invest the sum of Rs. 36,27,000/- in an auto-renewable fixed deposit account in the manner specified therein. It was recorded in the order passed on that date that the appeal was proposed to be heard based on the lower Court records without insisting for preparation of formal paper books.

3. Although effectively nothing survived for decision on CAN 1819 of 2019 after such order, it was not formally disposed of.

4. The appeal together with CAN 1819 of 2019 was next listed on July 31, 2018. A coordinate Bench then in seisin thereof felt that at least an informal paper book, containing copies of the oral and documentary evidence that were exhibited before the tribunal, would be necessary for effectively deciding the appeal and accordingly, liberty was granted to the claimant (on his asking) to prepare requisite number of informal paper books and the appeal was directed to be listed on August 14, 2018.

5. The appeal as well as the application has since been listed before us as an assigned matter, pursuant to an order passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on September 26, 2018.

6. The impugned award proceeded to award Rs. 20,56,800/-, as noticed above, the break-up whereof is follows:

7. Appearing in support of the appeal, Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant pressed Grounds II to VIII of the memorandum of appeal. The contentions raised by him based on such grounds are set out below in chronological order:-

(1) The FIR which was lodged on the date of the accident and the charge-sheet which was submitted upon completion of investigation of such FIR does not refer to the identity of the victim of the accident and hence, it is a false plea that the claimant was the victim of the accident;

(2) Although the disability certificate issued in favour of the claimant i