The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation for the death of the victim in a motor vehicle accident, considering factors such as the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver, future prospects of the deceased, and the application of interest on the awarded amount.

JUDGMENT :

RABINDRANATH SAMANTA, J.

1. This appeal is against the judgment and award dated 14th February, 2017 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter be referred to as the Tribunal), 2nd Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in MAC Case No. 60 of 2011. By the judgment the learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.18,22,740/- as compensation to the claimants out of which 80% would be payable to the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Sneha Bramha and Neha Bramha and 20% would be payable to the claimant No. 1 Smt. Shipra Bramha.

2. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned award the appellants have come up with the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

3. Before I proceed to pen the judgment it will be apposite to note that the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 namely Sneha Bramha and Neha Bramha who were minors at the time of filing the claim application have now attained majority. Their attainment of majority be recorded in the memorandum of appeal and any other relevant paper, if any. Henceforth they will be treated as major so far as this appeal is concerned.

4. The facts which led the filing of the claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act may be summarised as under:

On 29.12.2010 at about 10:00 P.M. Rupak Bramha, son of Shyamal Bramha of Village Debinagar, P.S. Raiganj, District - Uttar Dinajpur along with his relatives were going to Goa from Mumbai as the passengers of a vehicle (Bus) bearing No. MH-04G/8686. On the way to Goa they had a brief halt for Dinner at Hotel Sai Darbar by the side of N.H. Road at Wadkhal Naka, P.S. Wadkhal, District - Raigod. After having dinner they at about 1:40 A.M. were standing behind the said vehicle at a considerable distance. At that time the driver of the Bus proceeded on reverse motion with excessive speed rashly and negligently without giving any signal or blowing horn. As a result, the vehicle dashed Rupak Bramha from backside. He fell down and left wheel of the bus ran over his right mid thigh and right wrist. As a consequence thereof he sustained severe injuries on his person. Thereafter, he was shifted to MGM Hospital Navi Mumbai for treatment. Ultimately, on 30.12.2010 at about 3:40 A.M. he succumbed to the injuries.

5. The claimants allege that due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle the accident took place and the victim lost his life because of the accident.

6. The victim died at the age of 34 years. He used to carry on business of Brick filed, tractor, generator etc. He used to earn Rs. 25,392/- per month.

7. On the allegations of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, one Wadkhal PS Case No. 90 of 2010 dated 30.12.2010 under Sections 304A/279/238 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered for investigation against the driver. At the time of the accident the offending vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited.

8. It may be noted that after the untimely death of the victim, his wife Tanushree Bramha out of mental shock and agonies died on 5th March, 2011.

9. The claimant no. 1 Smt. Shipra Bramha is the mother of the victim and the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 Sneha Bramha and Neha Bramha are the daughters of him.

10. Owing to death of the victim, who was the only earning member of his family, the claimants have fallen in acute financial distress.

11. On the facts as above, the claimants sought for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- plus interest thereon.

12. The respondent No. 1, the New India Assurance Company Limited contested the claim case by filing a written statement wherein it denied the averments/allegations as made in the claim application. It has been averred in the written statement that the victim was responsible for the accident. The respondent No. 1 submits that the Insu