The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct assessment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the application of the correct multiplier for calculating the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

CAN 1 of 2023

1. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants moved an application for condonation of delay of 352 days in preferring the instant appeal. He referred paragraph Nos. 5 and 8 of the said application to show the sufficient cause prevented in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He prays for condonation of delay for admitting the appeal and hearing of appeal for substantive justice.

2. On the other hand, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1/insurance company raised objection of such prayer for condonation of delay.

3. Having heard the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the application, it appears the cause shown by the appellant is sufficient, satisfactory and accepted. Hence, delay in filing appeal is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, CAN 1 of 2023 is, thus, disposed of.

FMAT No. 961 of 2013

5. This instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 21.05.2012 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Purba Medinipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 96 of 2009 thereby the learned Tribunal allowed the claim application in part and awarded a sum of Rs.4,17,500/- along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. from 12.03.2009 till the date of its final payment from the insurance company in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the death of the deceased, Srimanta Mandal caused due to motor traffic accident.

6. The brief facts are relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal as follows :

On 13.01.2009 at about 1.50 pm, when the deceased was travelling on his motor cycle bearing no. WB-30 F/1640 from Mechada side towards Deulia side, at that time, a Lorry bearing registration no. RJ02 GA/0938 was proceeding from Kolaghat side at a high speed and suddenly dashed the motor cyclist along with his pillion-rider. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and died on the spot. Over the matter, Kolaghat P.S. Case No. 06/09 dated 13.01.2009 under Sections 279/304A IPC was started against the accused/driver of the offending vehicle. A charge sheet has been submitted after completion of investigation. The Oriental Insurance company Ltd. contested the claim case by filing written statement wherein all the material allegations as to the manner of the accident and also the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle was denied and disputed. The Insurance Co. also prayed for taking necessary defence available to the owner of the vehicle and filed a petition u/s 170 of the M.V. Act. According to the respondent No.1/insurance company, the claim is excessive, abnormal and without any legal and equitable basis as such, the claimants are not entitled to get such amount of compensation. However, the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the case.

7. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submitted that there is no dispute regarding the date, time and manner of accident and death of the victim caused due to motor traffic accident. It is also not disputed that the learned Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal however, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs.4,17,500/- without awarding compensation towards future prospect and actual general damages. Though the claimants are entitled future prospect and actual general damages in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment delivered in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is further submitted that no Correct Multiplier has been assessed by the Learned Tribunal in view of the age of the victim on the date of accident. Learned Tribunal erred while taking multiplier as 17 in place of 18. He