The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the calculation of compensation based on legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Appellants have assailed the judgment and award dated 30.01.2013 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Hooghly in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 130 of 2010 thereby the learned Tribunal ordered that the Motor Accident Claim case be allowed ex parte but without any cost against the owner of the offending vehicle and dismissed against the Ins. Co. i.e. the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,69,500/-along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the case till actual realization from the owner of the offending vehicle in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of death of the deceased due to Motor traffic accident and the owner of the offending vehicle is directed to pay the amount of compensation of Rs. 3,69,500/-to the appellants by way of cheque equally through the Ld. Tribunal within two months thereof, failing which the appellants will be at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law and the claimants will be entitled to interest @ 9 % per annum over the entire amount till actual realization. The owner of the offending vehicle is further directed to issue a separate cheque of Rs. 5,000/-with respect to loss of consortium to the widow of the deceased Ratan Chakraborty i.e. in favour of the appellant no. 1 in addition to her actual entitlement.

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as hereunder.

On 03.05.2010 at about 10 a.m. on GT Road near Champarui Radio Centre, the victim Ratan Chakraborty was proceeding towards Hoera by riding an auto Rickshaw bearing no. WB-15/A-3963. When it reached near Champarui Radio Centre under Mogra P.S. at that point of time, the offending container being No. WB-41/D-8683 coming from the opposite direction dashed against the auto rickshaw with a very high speed and negligent manner endangering the human life and safety. As a result, some passengers of that auto rickshaw including the deceased of this case received serious injuries on their persons. One unknown passenger died instantaneously at the spot and the auto rickshaw got damaged. Ratan Chakraborty and other injured passengers were shifted to Imambara Sadar Hospital at Chinsurah, wherein the doctor declared Ratan Chakraborty as dead. It has been stated in the claim application that four persons died out of the said accident. Ratan Chakraborty was one of them and was man of active habit and used to earn Rs. 4000/-per month from his employment in M/s Ghatak Builders under Mogra P.S. Hence, the claim application filed by the widow and other family member of the deceased and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5, 00,000/-.

3. The Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. contested the case wherein all the material allegations with regard to the age, income of the deceased, the mode and manner of accident and also the insurance coverage of the vehicle were denied. It has also been specifically averted in the written statement that the accused driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without any valid driving licence. The number of the D.L. is a fake one and it has no existence up till then as per testimonies of RTO and local investigator of the insurance company. It was contended that the claim of the appellants was excessive, abnormal and without any legal and equitable basis as such the claim application was liable to be dismissed with cost. It has further been alleged that the victim was responsible for the fatal accident and he himself violated the traffic rules. The insurer also filed an application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act for permission of the Ld. Tribunal to take all the defence available to the owner of the offending vehicle. Petition was allowed to take all defence available on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle.

4. Mr. Roy, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants/claimants submitted that the Ld. T