The main legal point established is the entitlement of the sole legal heir to represent the estate and receive compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the third party.

JUDGMENT :

Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. The instant appeal is preferred against a judgment and award dated 6th January 2014 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 1st ADJ Alipur, in MAC Case No. 3 of 2009.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present respondent filed an application u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act before the Learned Tribunal for getting compensation on the ground that her only unmarried son Lalu Roy alias Debu Roy died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle duly insured under the policy of the Insurance company.

3. During the pendency of the claim application, claimant expired and the present respondent was substituted at his place. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing written statement. After hearing the parties and after receiving evidences the Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,24,500/-in favour of the claimant and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. The claimant also preferred one cross-appeal being COT 43 of 2015. The appeal and the cross-appeal by taken up together for uniformity of decisions.

5. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the present respondent/claimant is the married sister of the deceased. The married sister is not at all dependant upon the income of the deceased. She is living at her husband’s house; so the respondent/claimant is not entitled to get any compensation.

6. He further argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed the requisite driving license at the time of accident. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation rather owner of the offending vehicle is required to pay the compensation. He further argued that the income adopted by the Learned Tribunal is erroneous and deduction towards the personal expenses should be 50% as the deceased was a bachelor. On the above grounds, he prayed for dismissal on the impugned award.

7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimant/cross objector submits that the Learned Tribunal has not considered the law of the land to award the compensation in favour of the claimant. The income of the deceased was erroneously taken to be 15,000/-per anumm. The observation of the Learned Tribunal is erroneous. The deceased was a hawker of Ganashakti Patrika and other magazine seller. So, his notional income cannot be less than 3,000 per month. He further argued that the claimant are entitled to get future prospects and general damages according to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi.

8. Refuting the contention of the Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company he submits that the claimant is the sole legal heir of the deceased and was always dependent upon the income of the deceased. She is entitled to get the compensation.

9. Heard the Learned Advocate. Perused the materials on record it appears that the deceased was a bachelor and the claim case was filed by the mother of the deceased. After demise of the original claimant the present respondent being the sole legal heir was substituted. The present respondent being the sister of the deceased is legally entitled to represent estate of the deceased. Accordingly the claimant/respondent is entitled to get the compensation.

10. In considering the driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle. It appears to me that the investigation of the police arising out of the said accident was concluded by filing charge sheet. It has been stated in the final report that the offending scooty was driving by one Anirban Bose (accused) possessing the DL No. – WB 01-297376. The Insurance Company has produced one UDA of Beltala Motor Vehicles Department as DW 1.

11. The said DW 1 has produced extract of driving licence before t