JUDGMENT :

Bivas Pattanayak, J :

1. The present appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed on 30th May 2018 by learned Judge, Vth Bench cum Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.A.C Case no. 263 of 2010 granting compensation in favour of respondents-claimants to the tune of Rs.14,59,326/-along with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 18th November 2009 at about 1:15 PM while the victim was proceeding through the VIP road from North to South direction on his bicycle, at that time the offending vehicle bearing no. WB-19D/7066 (Tata Magic) which was driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the victim from behind as a result of which he sustained head injuries. Thereafter the victim was taken to ESI Hospital and R.G Kar Hospital, wherefrom he was shifted to SSKM Hospital for further medical treatment. However, on the same day at night hours the victim was shifted to CMRI Hospital for better treatment and a considerable amount of Rs. 3 lakhs were spent towards treatment of the victim. Thereafter, once again the victim was shifted back to SSKM Hospital on 6 December 2009. Ultimately the victim succumbed to his injuries on 7 January 2010 and expired. On account of sudden demise of the deceased-victim, the respondents-claimants being widow, sons and mother of the deceased filed application for grant of compensation of Rs.15 lakhs along with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. The appellant-insurance company contested the claim application before the learned tribunal. However, respondent no.6-owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim application before the learned tribunal and the claim application was disposed of exparte against him.

4. The claimants (respondent nos. 1 to 5 herein) in order to prove their case examined as many as five witnesses including claimant no.2, son of the deceased and also produced documents which are marked as Exhibits 1 to 22 respectively.

5. The contesting opposite party no.2-insurance company (appellant herein) also adduced evidence of two witnesses and produced documents marked Exhibits A to D respectively.

6. Upon considering the materials on record as well as the evidence produced on behalf of the respective parties, the learned tribunal granted compensation in favour of the respondents-claimants of Rs. 14,59,326/-alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization.

7. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.

8. In the present appeal the respondent nos. 1 to 5 (claimants) have filed a cross-objection being COT 124 of 2019 for enhancement of compensation amount.

9. Both the appeal as well as the cross-objection is taken up together for consideration and disposal.

10. Mrs. Gopa Das Mukherjee, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the offending vehicle is a passenger carrying vehicle which is evident from the policy (Exhibit 8) issued by the insurance company in respect of the said vehicle being a passenger carrying vehicle package policy. Further it is the specific case of the insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date of accident did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle which is a passenger carrying vehicle. The driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle (Exhibit D) shows that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised only to drive light motor vehicle non-transport. Therefore, the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by plying the said vehicle through a driver who was not authorised to drive the offending vehicle which is a passenger carrying vehicle i.e a transport vehicle. For the aforesaid reasons, the insurance company cannot be saddled wi