The court emphasized the importance of valid driving licenses, the determination of just compensation, and the award of interest in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

B.N. Mahapatra, J.

This is an appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'the MV Act') filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited challenging the Judgment and award dated 25.05.2005 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack (hereinafter called as "the Tribunal") in Misc. Case No. 432/1993.

2. The short fact of the case, as stated by the claimant- Respondents in their claim petition, is that on 13.01.1993 at about 1.00 P.M. deceased-Ganeswar Swain while proceeding on a bi-cycle on the left side of the Express Highway, at Laxminarayanpur stoppage near Chhata, at about 1.00 P. M., the offending truck bearing Registration No. ORY-491 came at a very high speed without blowing horn in a most rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased was thrown at a distance and sustained serious injuries. The deceased was taken to Chhata hospital for treatment and thereafter because of his alarming condition he was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. On the way to hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and post mortem examination was conducted by the doctor over the dead body of the deceased. The deceased was serving as a teacher in a Government Upper Primary School and was getting salary of Rs. 2,343/- per month besides Rs. 1,000 per month from private tuition. He had a bright career ahead. The offending vehicle was validly insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited having Policy No. 3155077103453 which was valid till 02.12.1993 and the driver of the offending vehicle was also having a valid driving licence bearing No. 355: 79-Cuttack at the time of accident. With this fact the claimant-Respondents filed claim petition before the Learned Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 from the Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle making both of them liable them jointly and severally.

3. Opposite Party No. 2-lnsurance Company filed its written statement on 06.02.1993 denying its liability. The owner of the offending truck who was Opp.Party No. 1 before the Tribunal was set ex parte on 12.09.1995.

4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the Learned Tribunal framed the following four issues:

(i) Is the case maintainable?

(ii) Whether the death of the deceased was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No. ORY-491 ?

(iii) If the Petitioners are entitled to get any compensation and if so to what extent and from whom?

(iv) To what relief, if any, are the Petitioners entitled?

5. The claimants examined as many as three witnesses and produced five documents, which are marked as Ext.1 to 5, i.e., F.I.R., charge sheet, post mortem report, seizure list and pay particulars of the deceased respectively.

The Insurance Company neither examined any witness nor produced any document on its behalf.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, Learned Tribunal held that the accident which resulted in the death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the drive: of the offending truck. The monthly income of the deceased was held to be Rs. 3,343, i.e., Rs. 2,343 from salary & Rs. 1,000 from private tuition. Deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his monthly contribution towards family was determined at Rs. 2,300 and accordingly, his annual contribution was determined at Rs. 27,600. Applying multiplier 12 the loss of dependency sustained by the claimant-respondents was determined at Rs. 3,31,200. The Learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 800 towards the cost of funeral ceremony and Rs. 3,000 towards consortium. Thus, in. total, the Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,35,000 as just and reasonable compensation. Learned Tribunal further held that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver had valid and effective driving licence and Opposite Party No. 2 being the insurer