JUDGMENT :

CAN 10838 of 2012 filed in FMAT 1339 of 2012

1. The CAN application pertaining to the prayer for condonation of delay filed by the appellants/Insurance Company is taken up for hearing.

2. Upon perusal of the CAN application, it appears that there has been delay caused in preferring the instant appeal, and in the relevant averments of the application, the appellants have endeavored to explain the delay.

3. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the pleadings, this court is satisfied that the causes shown, thereby explaining the delay have been most successfully explained, and in that view of the matter, it appears that petitioner was prevented by sufficient causes from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation prescribed.

4. Delay is thus condoned.

5. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay stands disposed of.

6. Furnish relevant FMA No. upon registering the same.

FMAT 1339 of 2012 With FMA 1020 of 2013

7. On the prayer of both the parties, both the appeals are heard together for common questions of law being involved in both the cases.

8. Both the appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 13th February, 2012, passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Sealdah, South 24 Parganas, in Motor Accident Claim case No.6 of 2019, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,35,764/-on a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in connection with a vehicular accident, held on 4th April, 2008, resulting in death of 58 years old woman, serving then as a Social Welfare Officer at NRS Medical Collages and Hospital, by reason of involvement of a Vehicle bearing No. WB 25/2277 due to its rash and negligent driving.

9. FMAT 1339 of 2012 is an appeal preferred at the instance of Insurance Company primarily challenging grounds which are two-folds; firstly, the compensation amount awarded is not only abnormally high, but excessive also, as the claimants who are the married daughter and adult son of the deceased can hardly be regarded as dependents on the income of the deceased, and thus ascertainment of dependency has been improperly made. The another ground challenging the appeal is that since the deceased left this world, when she was 58 years old, having two years service only left, the selection of multiplier has been arbitrarily chosen, and it should have been done upon considering the residual years of service of the deceased.

10. FMA 1020 of 2013 has been preferred by the claimants challenging the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded by the court below. The income, according to claimants, has been considered by the Appellate Court from lower side, resulting in inadequate quantification of compensation. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in selecting proper multiplier and erred in law also by not granting the future prospects, and the damages thereby suffered by the claimants/defendants.

11. Admittedly the claimants are the married daughter and the adult son of the deceased.

12. Facts leading to death of deceased are not disputed.

13. The claim application came to be preferred before the learned Tribunal by the claimants in the capacity of legal representatives of the deceased upon resorting to the provisions available in Section 166(1) (c ) of M.V. Act.

14. Ascertainment of extent of dependency is one of the important factors, while making quantification of the award, in a claim case under the MV Act.

15. The expression “legal representatives” appearing in Section 166(1)(c) of the MV Act would be sufficient enough to cover the claimants within the meaning of legal representatives. Such point was raised before the Apex Court, and it was clarified by the Apex Court in the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender