The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the claimant to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident with reliable and cogent evidence to be entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.

In Re: CAN 3 of 2023

1. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant in COT No. 22 of 2021 moved an application for condonation of delay in preferring cross-objection. He referred paragraph Nos. 3 and 4 of the said application to show sufficient causes including lockdown due to Covid 19 pandemic prevented in filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He further submitted that there were no intentional latches or negligence on the part of the appellant rather it would have delayed due to sufficient reasons and unavoidable circumstances, which prevented the respondent to file the instant cross appeal/objection within the period of limitation. He prayed for condonation of delay.

2. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company/appellant in FMA No. 899 of 2013 opposed the prayer for condonation of delay.

3. Heard and on perusal of the application, it appears that the appellant could not file the instant cross objection within the period of limitation as provided in the said Act and the cause shown in the application is justified, sufficient and satisfactory as such accepted. Furthermore, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. So, the Court can take lenient view in case of delay. Delay is hereby condoned.

4. Accordingly, CAN 3 of 2023 is, thus, disposed of.

FMA No. 899 of 2013

5. Appellant/Insurance Company has filed this instant appeal being FMA No. 899 of 2013 feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and award dated 22nd day of May, 2012 passed by the Learned Judge, 6th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Midnapore in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 49 of 2010 thereby the learned Tribunal allowed the claim application on contest against the O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company and ex parte against the rest. The claimant being wife of the injured is entitled to get the award of compensation amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). The O.P. No. 2/Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation to the claimant vide an Account payee cheque in the name of the claimant along with 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of this case, failing which the award shall carry further 8% interest per annum up to its actual realisation in an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on account of injuries sustained by the victim due to motor traffic accident.

6. At the same time, the respondent/claimant filed memorandum of cross appeal/objection being COT 22 of 2021 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Award dated 22nd day of May, 2012 passed by the Learned Judge, 6th Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Medinipur in MAC Case No. 49 of 2010 on several grounds as under:

I. For that the Learned Tribunal Judge ought to have assessed 100% permanent disability instead of 90% since the victim suffered 100% earning capacity, while passing the compensation as such the aforesaid impugned award is bad in law and the same is liable to be enhanced and modified.

II. For that the Learned Tribunal Judge ought to have granted the compensation towards the heads of loss of future prospects while passing the impugned judgment and award as such the impugned award is bad in law and the same is liable to be enhanced and modified.

III. For that the Learned Tribunal Judge ought to have granted the adequate compensation on the heads of medical expenses, future medical expenses and non-pecuniary damages while passing the impugned judgment and award as such the impugned award is bad in law and the same is liable to be modified.

IV. For that the Learned Tribunal Judge ought to have assessed the actual income of Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 3,000/- of the injured as he was a businessman by his profession having income of Rs. 10,000/- per month prior to the accident as such the impugned award is bad in law and the same is liable to be e