The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of legal heirs to receive fixed compensation under S. 163A of MV Act, and the retrospective effect of procedural law in applying amendments to the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 23rd day of March, 2018 passed by the learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ADJ Fast Track 4th Court Jalpaiguri in a Motor Accident Claim Case No. 196 of 2012

2. The brief fact of the case is that the victim of this case namely, Haren Ray (deceased) on 28.03.2012 at about 8:00 am was standing near a tea stall at Panga Battala More, PS Kotwali, PS Karjipara, District Jalpaiguri at that time a trailer (commercial) bearing Registrtion No. WB-73/1972, driven by its driver in a very high speed and rash and negligent manner dashed the deceased. By sudden the deceased sustained multiple bleeding injuries on his person the local people admitted him to the Sadar Hospital, but he succumbed to his injuries.

3. The legal heir of the deceased filed a claim case u/s 163A of MV Act before the Learned Tribunal for getting compensation. The owner of the offending vehicle did not turn up so the matter heard by ex-parte by the Learned Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal after hearing the petitioner and after receiving the evidences dismissed the claim case. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants.

4. It appears that though the owner did not contest the matter before the Learned Tribunal but appeared before this appellate court and represented by Mrs. Satarupa Sanyal, Learned Advocate.

5. Mr. Jayanta Banerjee Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the claimant submits that the Learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the case without going through the materials on record. He submits that the claim case was only dismissed on the ground that the present appellant has failed to prove or adduce any single documents to show that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Haren Ray. Mr. Banerjee submits that the relationship of the present claimant/appellant has been specifically mentioned in Paragraph 19 and 20 of the claim application. The claimant No. 1 is the widow of the deceased, claimant No. 2 is the married daughter and claimant No. 3 is the son of the deceased. There are no contradictory evidences to disbelieve the relationship of the present appellant/ claimants before the Learned Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal has pick up the point which is not in the issue. The Learned Tribunal has erroneously dismissed the claim case on the same frivolous ground. Mr. Banerjee further submits that the appellant have filed one application being CAN 2 of 2023 for production of additional evidence in Appellate Court under order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Banerjee further argued that the copy of AAdhar Cards of the appellants have been appended along with this CAN application, wherefrom it would be revealed the appellant is the only legal heir of the deceased Haren Ray. Mr. Banerjee further argued that the claimants are entitled to get just and proper compensation of this case.

6. Mrs. Sanyal appearing on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle submits that the entire claim case filed by the claimants is baseless and liable to be dismissed. She argued that the alleged accident was happened on 28.03.2012 but the FIR was lodged on 3rd April 2012. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. In the FIR there is no explanation of such delay. She further argued that the son of the deceased lodged the FIR contending inter alia that, his father was dashed by one pick-up-van bearing No. WB 731972. On the basis of such FIR one police case bearing case no. 279 of 2012 dated 03.04.2012 was started at Kotwali PS. The police investigated the case and submitted FRT of 30.11.2012. She submits that from the said investigation of the police it is revealed that the number of alleged vehicle as stated in the FIR, is not a pick-up-van but it is a trailer of Mrs. Jayshree Tea and Industries Limited. It is the opinion of the IO that original offending vehicle c