The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal provisions to calculate compensation in motor accident claims, considering the victim's income, future prospects, and loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT :

(Rabindranath Samanta, J.) :

1. Feeling aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 5th Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C case No. 546 of 2003, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal.

2. The facts of the claim case brought by the appellants as claimants may briefly be stated as follows:-

On 24th November, 2002 at about 3:30 P.M. while the victim Bharat Mondal was going towards Sultan Nagar from Gopiganj along Sultan Nagar Gopiganj Metal Road by the offending vehicle No. WB- 29/4002(mini truck) as a khalasi, the vehicle was proceeding with excessive high speed endangering human life and safety without blowing any horn. When the vehicle reached Tetultola it dashed road side pedestrians and got capsized. As a result, the victim sustained severe injuries on his person and he died on the spot. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

3. On the aforesaid accident an FIR was lodged at Daspur Police Station and the FIR was registered as Daspur P.S Case No. 73 of 2002 dated 25.11.2002 under Sections 279/337/338/304A of Indian Penal Code.

4. The victim died at the age of 32 years. He died leaving behind him claimant No. 1 Smt. Pranati Mondal as wife, claimant Nos. 2 and 3 Chandan Mondal and Subrata Mondal as sons, claimant No. 4 Supriya Mondal as daughter and claimant No.5 Sarala Bala Mondal as mother and they are his legal heirs. The victim used to earn Rs. 2,500/- per month.

5. At the time of the accident the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 1 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited.

6. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the appellants/claimants sought for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest from the date of the filing of the claim application.

7. The respondent No.1, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited contested the claim case by filing a written objection wherein it denied all the averments as made in the claim application and sought for dismissal of the case.

8. Upon the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:-

i) Is the claim case maintainable in its present form ?

ii) Did the accident, resulting in death of Bharat Mondal, occur due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of offending vehicle no. WB-29/4002 (mini truck)?

iii) Was the offending vehicle insured with the insurer Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the date of the accident?

iv) Whether there has been violation of any terms of insurance policy?

v) Are the claimants entitled to get the compensation as prayed for and if so, to what extent ?

9. Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the victim was a gratuitous passenger of the offending vehicle and his yearly income was Rs.15,000/- as a non-earning person. Learned Counsel submits that the evidence adduced by P.W. 1 Pranati Mondal convincingly proves that her husband the victim Bharat Mondal used to earn Rs.2,500/- per month as a khalasi of the offending vehicle. Learned Counsel argues that the computation of compensation made by the learned Tribunal is erroneous. It is his further argument that the award of the learned Tribunal that the claimants would get interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the failure on the part of the Insurance Company to pay compensation within a specified period is vitiated with errors. Besides, learned Counsel submits that the claimants are entitled to future prospect in view of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited – Vs- Pranay Sethi and Ors reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.

10. Per Contra, Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that as per the observations of the learned Tribunal, the victim was a gratuitous passenger of the offending vehicle (mini truck) which was never mea