JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal is listed today under the heading “To Be Mentioned” at the instance of learned advocate for both the parties to this case, upon mentioning.

2. Learned advocate for both the parties are ad idem on the point that the instant appeal may be disposed of giving a go bye to the technicalities involved in the process.

3. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant/Insurance Company that the appeal may be disposed of on the basis of the materials furnished by both the parties to this case, which is not opposed by the respondents/claimants.

4. When the learned advocates for both parties are agreeable to the expeditious disposal of the instant appeal, the Court should not stand in the way.

5. The appeal is thus taken up for consideration irrespective of the fact that the appeal is appearing today under the heading “To Be Mentioned”.

6. This is an appeal of Insurance Company, and the appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 29th September, 2018, passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Fast Track Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas, in M.A.C. Case No.59 of 2016, of a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, granting award to the tune of Rs.8,72,800/- to the dependents of the deceased, namely, Saddam Hossain Mollick @ Saddam Mollick, for a vehicular accident, occurred on 8th April, 2016, by reason of involvement of vehicle No.WB-19G/1259 in consequence of rash and negligent driving.

7. Mrs. Sucharita Paul, learned advocate representing appellants/Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has erroneously decided the compensation ignoring the facts that the driver of offending vehicle neither possessed driving licence, nor the offending vehicle had any valid route permit, and more so, the registration of the offending vehicle was not valid on the date of accident.

8. Adverting to the exhibited documents, like claim application, seizure list, charge-sheet, copy of route permit, Mrs. Paul submits that a yellow colour offending school bus had been used to make staff of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose International Airport reach to the destination, making violation of the terms and conditions of the policy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company.

9. The quantification of the award is thus absolutely illegal.

10. Emphasis has been made by Mrs. Paul that the accident was held on 8th April, 2016 and the registration certificate/Exbt.3 was valid till 19th February, 2016. Therefore, the validity period of the registration having expired before the date of accident, there had been gross violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, for which the appellant/Insurance Company should not have been made liable to pay any compensation responding to the claim application.

11. Referring to the terms and conditions of the policy, and the wanting of valid driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle, Mrs. Paul contends that the compensation, if any, should have been paid by the owner of the offending vehicle, but not by Insurance Company, for the apparent violation of the terms and conditions of the policy being ex facie, shown in the instant claim case.

12. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal has filed a cross-objection being COT 4 of 2020, mainly on the point of income of the victim, which according to respondents/claimants, remained improperly assessed by the learned Tribunal leading to inadequate quantification of the award granted in this case, which can hardly be regarded just and proper.

13. Upon perusal of the judgement, it appears that victim left this world being a victim of road traffic accident, when he was 23 years old. Victim was a fish seller at the time of accident.

14. Facts leading to the death of the vic