JUDGMENT :

Rabindranath Samanta, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter be referred to as the Tribunal), 8th Court, Alipore, South 24 Parganas vide judgment dated 25.06.2004 in M.A.C. Case No. 265 of 2000 the claimant Smt. Arati Mondal, wife of Gunadhar Mondal, appellant No.1 herein, preferred the instant appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the sole appellant/claimant Arati Mondal died and in her place her husband namely Gunadhar Mondal and her daughter namely Sulekha Mondal were substituted in her place by order dated 02.07.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court.

2. The claimant Arati Mondal initially filed the claim application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Subsequently, on her application for amendment, the claim case was converted to a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the case under Section 163A of the Act vide order dated 23rd June, 2003 passed by the learned Tribunal.

3. To put succinctly, the facts of the claim application as brought by the claimant Arati Mondal may be stated as under:

On 28.04.2000 at about 3:45 P.M. Gopal Mondal, the son of the claimant Arati Mondal being the driver of a bus bearing No. WB-19/6287 on route No. SD-8 was proceeding from the Thakurpukur bus stoppage with a destination to go to Bibirhut bus stand. While the bus reached near Nandabhanga-Ghosh pukur bus stoppage, then a bus bearing No. WB-19/6703 on route No. SD-22 was proceeding from the opposite direction rashly and in negligent manner endangering to human life dashed against the driver’s cabin of Gopal Mondal. As a result, he sustained severe chest injuries. Blood came out from his face and he was taken to Samaly Primary Health Centre. After some first aid was given to him, he was referred to M.R. Bangur Hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.

4. It was alleged by the claimant that the driver of the offending bus bearing No. WB-19/6703 was responsible for the accidental death of the claimant’s son. The victim Gopal Mondal died at the age of 24 years. He was the only son of the claimant. The victim used to earn Rs. 6,000/- per month.

5. On the allegations of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle an FIR was lodged at Bishnupur Police Station which was registered as Bishnupur P.S Case No. 106 dated 28.04.2000 under Sections 279/338/427/304A of the Indian Penal Code.

6. At the time of the accident the offending bus bearing No. WB-19/6703 was registered with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the non-offending bus bearing No. WB-19/6287 driven by the victim was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited.

7. The victim used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as a driver of the aforesaid non-offending bus.

8. Under the aforesaid facts, the claimant sought for compensation.

9. The respondent No.1 Oriental Insurance Company Limited contested the claim application by filing a written statement wherein it denied the averments/allegations as made by the claimant in the claim application and sought for dismissal of the case with costs.

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

i) Is the case maintainable in its present form ?

ii) Whether the alleged accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No. WB-19/6703 (bus) ?

iii) Whether the offending vehicle was covered by Insurance at the time of accident ?

iv) Is the claimant entitled to get the award as prayed for ?

v) To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled ?

11. From the case records of the learned Tribunal, it appears that the claimant in order to prove her case examined as many as three witnesses. The documents filed by the claimant were marked as Exhibited documents. However, no oral or documentary