JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 06.06.2009 passed in Compensation Case No.71 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge-II-cum-M.V.A.C.T. at Chaibasa whereby and where under the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.3,89,000/- towards compensation in favour of the claimants/ appellants and deducted Rs.50,000/- which was paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act and directed payment of remaining compensation amount i.e. Rs.3,39,000/- to the claimants/appellants by the Opposite Party No.3- Insurance Company.

3. The brief fact of this case is that the deceased- Basanti Gagrai was travelling by a bus which was rashly and negligently driven in excessive speed on 01.01.2004. The said bus met with an accident by which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. It is stated that the deceased was a brilliant student and she passed Secondary School Examination in the year 1995. The deceased was 23 years of age at the time of her death and it is stated that her monthly income was Rs.4,500/- approximately which she was earning by working as a Teacher in Shiksha Pariyojana School and was also giving private tuition as well as she was supplementing her income by cultivation.

4. The Opposite Party No.3- Insurance Company opposed the prayer for compensation and that the Opposite Party No.1- the owner of the offending bus also opposed the claim for compensation by filing written statement.

5. The learned tribunal, on the basis of rival pleadings, framed the following seven issues:-

(1) Whether the claimants have cause of action of right to sue and the case is maintainable?

(2) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle?

(3) Whether the deceased died due to motor vehicle accident?

(4) Whether the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy for which the vehicle has been insured under the insurer?

(5) Whether the deceased was himself responsible for the accident and was guilty for contributory negligence?

(6) Whether the insurer of the vehicle is liable to indemnify the insured (owner) of the vehicle?

(7) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed by them?

6. In support of their case, the claimants altogether examined three witnesses. The claimant No.1 is the A.W.1.

7. A.W.2- Anand Kumar Birua is the eye-witness of the occurrence. He was also travelling in the same offending bus.

8. A.W.3- Jamuna Doraiburu has stated that the deceased was earning Rs.3,000/- per month.

9. In support of their case, the claimants besides the oral testimony also proved the relevant documents which have been marked Ext.1 to 5.

10. The learned tribunal took up issue Nos. 2, 3 and 5 together and after considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased-Basanti Gagrai died due to that accident and there is no evidence in the record to establish that the deceased-Basanti Gagrai was responsible for the accident. So, there is no contributory negligence on her part and decided issue Nos.2, 3 and 5 in favour of the claimants.

11. The learned tribunal, thereafter took up issue No.4 and came to the conclusion that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy for which the vehicle was insured.

12. In respect of issue No.7, the learned tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.3,000/- and after deducting one-third of her income towards her personal expenses; applied the multiplier of 16 and added Rs.5,000/- under the conventional head and came to total compensation of Rs.3,89,000/-

13. The tribunal lastly took up issue No.6 and as the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company; directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount with right to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the owner and driver of the offendin