The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for condonation of delay, as well as the assessment of compensation under Section 163A of the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J :

In Re: CAN 2 of 2013 (Old No. CAN 11786 of 2013)

1. This is an application for condonation of delay under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in preferring an appeal beyond the period of limitation i.e. 2 days. It is submitted that there is no intentional latches or negligence on the part of the appellant/Insurance Company to file this appeal beyond the period of limitation. Learned Advocate also referred the paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to show the causes for delay.

2. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/Claimants opposed the prayer for condonation of delay.

3. Heard and on perusal of the application and the paragraphs as referred above, this Court finds the appellant has shown the cause of delay is satisfactory, justified as such accepted. Accordingly, delay, as prayed for, is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, CAN 2 of 2013 (Old No. CAN 11786 of 2013) is, thus, disposed of.

5. Both the Appeal and Cross-appeal/objection are taken up for the purpose of disposal on merits.

FMAT No. 1375 of 2013 With COT 64 of 2014

6. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this instant First Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 07.08.2013 passed by Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Paschim Medinipur thereby the learned Tribunal allowed the MACC Case No. 298 of 2011 on contest but in part against the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and ex parte without cost against the rest. The learned Tribunal directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,16,500/-in total and further directed to make payment of Rs. 1,08,000/-to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 each and Rs. 1,00,500/-to the petitioner no. 3 towards compensation by way of A/c Payee cheque within 3 months from the date thereof along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this case till realization in full. Whereas the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed cross-appeal/objection being COT No. 64 of 2014 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the awarded amount of compensation as aforesaid seeking enhancement of the compensation amount with a contention that the learned Tribunal did not assess the actual compensation amount as per the Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Tribunal also erred in calculating the multiplier as 13 though the multiplier would be 18 in view of the age of the victim. Actual income Rs. 3,300/-per month of the victim has also not considered by the learned Tribunal. Hence, both First Miscellaneous Appeal and Cross-appeal/Objection are taken up together for the purpose of proper disposal.

7. The brief facts of this case are as under:

On 27.04.2011 at about 4 am when the deceased as a helper of Pick Van being vehicle no. WB-33/7790, aged about 20 years, was coming from Lowada towards Kharagpur through NH-6 road and when the said vehicle reached near Ashari More, one another truck, which was coming in the same direction dashed the pickup van as a result the pickup van bearing No. WB-33/7709 capsized on the road and the helper of the vehicle received severe injuries on his person and immediately after such accident, he was removed to hospital by the local people but at the hospital he was declared brought dead by the attending doctor.

It is the allegation of the claimants that accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the pickup van bearing no. WB-33/7709 though the claimants have filed this claim case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-for loss of income, mental pain and agony.

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing written statement thereby denied and disputed all material facts and allegations of the claimants and further challenged the maintainability of the case and denied its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants on the plea that the pickup van bearing no. WB-33/7709 had no permit to carry passengers being a l