KANTILAL AND BROS Vs. RAMARANI DEBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Messrs Kantilal and Brothers and the Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. against the award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Compensation Tribunal for Calcutta and 24-Parganas in favour of the respondents before us who were the petitioners before the Tribunal below.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the claim of the petitioners before the Tribunal are required to be briefly stated. One Anurup Chandra Banerjee, a retired District and Sessions Judge of the State of Bihar aged about 72 years was knocked down by a private Ambassador car which was running at a great speed without giving any signal or sounding any horn. After the victim had been run over by the car, the driver did not slow down the speed but ran away without making any attempt for rendering medical aid to the injured. As a result thereof the victim died. The driver of the offending car was convicted and sentenced under Section 304-A of the I.P.C. The heirs and successors of the deceased were Ramarani Debi, the widow, Amiya Mukherjee, the daughter and Ashim Kumar Banerjee and Arun Banerjee, the sons. They filed an application for compensation in prescribed form pn the death of Anurup Chandra Banerjee before the Motor Accidents Claims Compensation Tribunal. The claim was for a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. The appellants were the opposite parties before the Tribunal. They filed separate objections to the claim made by the petitioners. Messrs Kantilal and Brothers are the owners of the offending car duly insured. The Vulcan Insurance Co, Ltd. were the insurers.

(3.) The learned Judge presiding over the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record and in the facts and circumstances of this case held that the petitioners were entitled to a sum of Rupees 28,536/- towards compensation along with the costs of the application including the lawyer's fees assessed at Rs. 100/- payable by the Vulcan Insurance Co. Ltd. and an award was accordingly made. Against that the present joint appeal has been preferred by the two opposite party-appellants. A cross-objection under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil P. C. has also been filed by the respondents.