The above two appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and order, dated 26.6.2001, passed by the learned Member, MACT, West Tripura, Agartala in TSMAC 320/1999. As both the appeals, involving same parties, are represented by the same sets of Advocates, for the sake of brevity and with the consent of' the learned counsel, appearing for both the parties, I have heard these appeals, together and propose to dispose of by this common judgment and order.

2. On 9.2.1999 at about5.30 P.M., Sujit Kumar Pal (since deceased), predecessor in interest of the claimants, while riding his Scooter, through the Laxminarayan Bari Road, Agartala, was hit by the offending vehicle i.e. vehicle No. AS-25-4387, as a result of which the deceased, along with his Scooter had fallen into a road side drain and sustained injuries on the little finger of his right hand. Due to the said accident, the deceased became unconscious and he was taken to the IGM Hospital, wherein he was given first aid. Subsequently, he was attended by Dr. Dilip Kumar Debbarma (Surgeon), under whose treatment he was upto 26.2.1999. On being advised by Dr. Dilip Kumar Debbarma, the deceased attended the Peerless Hospital,. Kolkata, wherein he was treated, as an Indoor Pattent, till 1.3.1999. From Peerless Hospital, he was referred to ID & BG Hospital, Beliaghata, Kolkata. While undergoing treatment in the said Hospital, he expired on 6.3.1999, due to the injuries sustained by him.

3. In connection with the said accident, an FIR was lodged with the Police, at Agartala and the same was registered as East Agartala P.S. Case No. 44/1999, under Section 2797 338 IPC.

4. On the death of the deceased aforesaid, the appellants of MAC Appeal No. 36/2001, claiming to be legal representatives and dependants of the deceased, filed a claim case, claiming and dependants of the deceas#31;ed, filed a claim case, claiming compensation of Rs. 16,12,000/-. The claimants alleged that the deceased, who was aged about 43 years, was a Contractor by profession and that his monthly income was Rs. 8,700.00.

5. The said claim was contested by the owner of the vehicle i.e. respondent No. 1 of MAC Appeal No. 36/2001 and appellant of MAC Appeal No. 73/2012. Admitting the accident, the owner of the said offending vehicle stated, in his written statement, that though the deceased sustained injuries, in the said accident, there was no negligence or fault on the part of the answering respondent and that the deceased sustained injuries due to his own laches and negligence. Terming the compensation claimed by the claimants, to be exorbitant, the said respondent stated that as the vehicle was insured, with the insurer i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer was liable to pay the compensation, if any. The said owner of the vehicle also submitted all the relevant documents, including the insurance certificate, along with his written statement.

6. The insurer i.e. respondent No.2, of, MAC Appeal No. 36/2001, in the claim case, while denying the claim of the claimants, averred, that the claimants were liable to substantiate that the vehicle was driven by a person having valid route permit, tax token, fitness certificate and registration certificate etc. and that the owner was liable to produce the certificate of insurance. The Insurance Company also filed an application, under Section 170 and 149 of the M.V. Act.

7. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned MACT framed the following issues: -

(1) Whether Sunjit Kr. Pal died in a vehicular accident, on 6.3.1999, due to rash and negligent driving of the Vehicle No. AS-25/4387?

(2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation, if so what should be the amount of compensation and who shall be liable for payment?

8. In order to establish their claim, the claimant No. 1 i.e. the mother of the claimant No.2 and 3, (both minors) examined herself as PW1 and another person as PW2. The Insurance Company examined two witnesses, namely Shri Soroj