The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and the application of the legal principle that only the widow was entitled to the consortium.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.

1. Instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 20th day of March, 2023 passed by the learned Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Fast Track 1st Court Tamluk Purba Medinipur in a Motor Accident Claim Case No. 98 of 2016

2. The brief of fact of the case is that on 24.05.2016 at about 11:30 am while the victim, Nani Gopal Maity was coming after completion of day’s work from Kolaghat Engineering College and waiting near ATM Gate for availing a bus then, suddenly a Maruti Omni Van bearing Registration No. WB 30 K/4300 which was coming from Kolaghat side in a high speed and negligent manner dashed the victim with great force by which the victim severely injured and died on spot.

3. The present respondent/claimant being the legal heirs of the deceased has preferred an application before the Learned Tribunal u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for getting compensation on the ground that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle which was duly insured under the policy of the Insurance Company.

4. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement. The Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties and after receiving the evidence has awarded of sum of Rs. 7,49,000/- as a compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the Insurance Company has preferred the instant appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Debnarayan Roy appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the award was challenged by the Insurance Company on the following grounds:

(i) The offending vehicle bearing No. WB 30 K/4300 (Maruti Omni) involved in the alleged accident.

(ii) The income of the deceased was calculated excessively by the Learned Tribunal.

(iii) Excessive amount of compensation was awarded towards the consortium in this case.

Regarding non-involvement of offending vehicle

Mr. Roy submits that the Learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case. He argued that FIR was lodged after the said accident at Kolaghat PS by the brother of the deceased. The FIR does not disclose the registration No. or the nature of the offending vehicle, but surprisingly during the investigation, the IO mentioned that the offending vehicle is a Maruti Omni Van having registration No. No. WB 30 K/4300. Mr Roy indicated the seizure list and argued that though alleged accident happened on 24.05.2016, the so called offending vehicle was seized on 14.06.2016. He submits that the present claimants in collusion with the police authority and the owner of the offending vehicle has implanted the so called offending vehicle in this case. He further argued that the IO of this case has deposed before the Learned Tribunal as OPW-2; who has stated that it is not ascertain from investigation whether exactly the Motor Car was guilty of the accident or not.

6. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent/claimant Mr. Krishanu Banik submits that the grounds of Insurance Company for preferring the appeal regarding noninvolvement of the vehicle is baseless. It is the general and reasonable act for the relative of the deceases to state the fact of accident to the concerned P.S. but it is the duty of the investigating officer to find out the truth. After the investigation the investigating officer has come to know that the Maruti Omni Van bearing no. No. WB 30 K/4300 is involved in the accident. The Insurance Company has no materials to prove that the claimant has colluded with the investigating agency or the owner of the offending vehicle to implant the offending vehicle in this case.

7. He further argued that the owner of the offending vehicle was called by the Insurance Company to depose and as OPW-1. OPW-1 is the owner-cum driver of the offending vehicle who specifically admitted the accident. The IO also deposed as OPW-2; who stated that during the i