The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

This appeal and cross objection are being disposed of by a common judgment since they arise out of the same award dated 23-08-2013 delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. T.S.(MAC) 443 of 2010 whereby he awarded compensation of Rs.48,35,888/- to the claimant under the following heads:-

Cost of medicine = Rs. 50,000/-

Attendant charges = Rs. 34,200/-

Lump sum Conveyance charges = Rs. 10,000/-

Future Loss of income = Rs.39,41,688/-

Future attendant charges = Rs. 2,00,000/-

Future medical expenses = Rs. 1,00,000/-

Mental stress, agony and discomfort = Rs. 5,00,000/-

Total = Rs.48,35,888/-

2. Sri Kohinoor N Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, has made three submissions. His first submission is that the rash and negligent driving has not been proved. His second submission is that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving license and the Insurance Company was not given a reasonable opportunity to prove its case and, therefore, the burden of paying the compensation should be shifted upon the owner of the vehicle. He lastly submits that the amount of compensation awarded is highly excessive. On the other hand, Ms. Sujata Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the claimant, submits that the award is just and legal calling for no interference in appeal.

3. First of all, I shall take up the issue of rash and negligent driving. The accident is not denied. It is not disputed that while the petitioner who was then working as a constable with the BSF at Malda in West Bengal was on his bicycle, he was hit from behind by vehicle bearing No.WB-41-C-7777, TATA-407 Med Truck. This truck is admittedly owned by Sri Hari Dey and insured with the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. The claimant stepped into the witness box and supported his claim. He has been cross-examined but neither the insurance company nor the owner of the vehicle examined the driver of the vehicle or any other person to show that the driver of the vehicle was not involved. We are dealing with a case under the Motor Vehicles Act. No doubt under the Motor Vehicles Act (M.V. Act) also, it is for the claimant to establish negligence but this is not like a criminal case where negligence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Motor Accident Claims cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence. In the present case, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the claimant. No other evidence has been led and, therefore, I reject the first submission of Sri Kohinoor N Bhattacharji and hold that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing No.WB-41-C-7777.

4. Next issue raised by Sri Kohinoor N Bhattacharji is that the Insurance Company was not given any opportunity to prove the fact that the driving license of the driver submitted by the owner was, in fact, a forged and fake driving license. In this behalf, I have gone through the record and I find that this driving license was produced by the owner in Court only on 28.5.2013. According to owner of the vehicle, his driver was one Sri Hafijul Hazra, S/O. Khalek Hazra and he had produced the driving license on 28.5.2013 in this regard. The Insurance Company appointed an Investigator to investigate the matter and the Investigator submitted a report that the license No.WB-25082972 had not been issued in the name of Hafijul Hazra but as per the record of the Licensing Authority this license was issued in favour of one Rajesh Yadav. Therefore, according to the Insurance Company this license was a fake and fraudulent license. The Insurance Company moved an application before the Tribunal on 17.7.2013 seeking permission to summon a witness along with the record from the office of the Licensing Authority, Barasat to prove its case. The learned Tribunal rejected this application as being belated. I fail to understand how this application could be said to be bel