The brother and sister of a deceased person are his legal heirs and entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal is preferred by the claimants against the judgment of Learned MAC Tribunal, Judge, 2nd Court Suri on 30th July of 2015 in MAC Case No. 76 of 2013 u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The claimants are the brother and sisters of deceased namely, Bijay Mukherjee who died in a road traffic accident on 2nd of February, 2013. On the fateful day, the deceased was going towards Barosal, Fakirpara by riding a Motor Cycle from Munsuba petrol pump by NH 60, when he reached near Kendia Kata at the time the offending vehicle (Tata Truck) bearing No. WB 37-B/0023 which was driving in a rash and negligent manner with excessive high speed dashed the said victim as a result he received serious bleeding injuries and was shifted to the hospital where he was declared dead. The Insurance Company contested the claim case by filing written statement. The claimants have produced three witnesses before the Learned Tribunal but Insurance Company has not produced any witness. After hearing the parties and after perusing the evidences on record both oral and documentary the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim case in favour of the claimants but directed the opposite party No. 1 i.e. the owner of the offending Truck to pay the compensation amounting to Rs. 10, 00,000/-on the ground that at the time of accident the offending vehicle had no valid permit.

2. The claimants/appellants are before this court with the ground that the impugned order passed by the Learned Tribunal is erroneous. Learned Tribunal should have ordered the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and the Insurance Company may have the liberty to recover the same from the owner. The appellants also taken the ground in appeal that the Learned Tribunal has committed error in calculating the income of the deceased. PW 3 has deposed before this court to prove the Income Tax return submitted by the deceased prior to the accident but the Learned Tribunal has not considered the same and came to an erroneous finding. It is the further ground of the appellant that the ‘Future Prospect’ according to the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi, need be allowed in favour of the appellant.

3. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company though has not filed for cross appeal but submitted that the assessment of income by the Learned Tribunal is erroneous. The average income of the 04 (four) assessment years required to be calculated.

4. The Insurance Company argued that the claimants being the brother and sisters are not dependant of the deceased and they are not entitled to get any compensation. They cannot enjoy forum out of misfortune.

5. He further argued that from the fact of the case it would be revealed that there was a face to face accident between two vehicles. Thus, the victim has contributed the accidents. The part of contribution of the victim need be apportioned from the entire amount of compensation. He further argued that the case of the claimants is quite unnatural, there is delay in preferring the FIR. The seizure list of the police case arising out of the accident, mentioned the offending vehicle (Truck) was plying in the road without any valid permit. The owner has entire knowledge about the expiry of permit; thus at this juncture the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

7. Learned Advocate for the appellant in reply submitted that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased as defined u/s 166 of the M.V Act thus they are entitled to get the compensation.

8. Heard the Learned Advocates, peruse the papers and materials on record.

9. Admittedly the present petitioners are the brother and sister of the deceased. The brother may have his separate income and the married sister is not actually dependant upon the income of the deceased. Let me consider the provisions of Section 166 of