The burden of proof lies with the Insurance Company to establish the driver's lack of a valid driving license, and legal principles from relevant case law are applied to determine future prospect and multiplier for computing compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant National Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court – II, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman in MAC No. 38 of 2011 renumbered as MAC No. 07 of 2012. By the award the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (hereinafter be referred to as the Tribunal) directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.12,52,792/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till realization of the amount from the appellant.

2. The facts which led the filing of the claim-application may be summarised as under:-

On 21.12.2010 at about 5:30 P.M. the victim Naran Garai alias Narayan Garai alias Narayan Chandra Gorai was returning to his house at village Amdiha with others from Raniganj by his ambassador car bearing No. WB-38/R-8629. While the car in which he was travelling was on N.H.-2 near Kalla Bye-pass, then one truck bearing No. BR-24/G-0574 suddenly dashed the ambassador car. The driver of the truck was driving the truck in rash and negligent manner and as a result of which the accident took place. Because of the accident the victim and other co-passengers of the vehicle suffered injuries all over their body. The local people shifted them to Sub-Divisional Hospital, Asansol for their treatment, but the condition of the victim was critical and at the advice of the attending doctor the victim was shifted to the Mission Hospital, Durgapur then and then. But, after prolonged treatment the victim died at the hospital fourteen days after the accident.

3. The respondent No.1 Smt. Kalyani Garai is the widow of the victim and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 Karunamoy Garai and Binay Krishna Garai are the sons of him. Owing to the sudden death of the victim who was the sole bread earner, his widow and sons fell in immense financial distress.

4. At the time of his death the victim used to earn Rs. 1,57,090/- per annum carrying on business of transportation. At the time of his death he was aged about 58 years.

5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being the legal heirs of the deceased sought for compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- plus interest.

6. As it appears from the case record, despite service of notice upon him, the respondent No.4 Kalisadhan Goswami, the owner of the offending vehicle did not turn up before the learned Tribunal to contest the case and as such the case proceeded ex parte against him.

7. However, the appellant Insurance Company contested the case by filing a written objection wherein it denied the averments as made in the claim application and sought for dismissal of the application.

8. Upon the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal framed issues for adjudication of the matter.

9. As it appears, the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in order to establish their case examined as many as eight witnesses. Besides, some documents relied upon by them were marked as Exhibited documents.

10. Upon hearing the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence the learned Tribunal passed the award as above.

11. Mr. Afroze Alam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal erred in passing the award and wrongly directed the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.12,52,792/- without recording any finding that the owner of the offending vehicle was responsible for paying the compensation as the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of driving did not possess any valid driving licence. Learned Counsel argues that ordinarily this Court awards 6% interest on the awarded amount, but the learned Tribunal erroneously directed the appellant to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Learned Counsel points out that the claimants have asserted that the victim was a businessman of transportation, but the learned Tribunal has penned is his judgment that the deceased was a