Moushumi Bhattacharya JUDGMENT
Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the Act), against a judgment dated 28th August, 2019 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) at Port Blair Andaman & Nicobar Islands in M.A.C.T. case No. 53 of 2008 passed in an application under Section 166 of the Act filed by the appellant who was the claimant No. 1 before the Tribunal. It should be clarified that the case was initially filed under Section 163-A of the Act but was later amended to a Claim under Section 166 by an order dated 25th March, 2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Port Blair. The claimed amount of Rs. 8,31,000/- however remained the same. We notice from the records that the Amended Claim was received by counsel for the Insurance Company on 2nd April, 2014.
2. Before we come to the impugned judgment, the facts as presented by learned counsel appearing for the parties, should be stated in brief.
3. The deceased, Y. Easwar Rao, aged about 21 years, worked as a daily labourer at Andaman & Nicobar Islands. On 9th September, 2006, at about 8:30 hours, Easwar Rao boarded an auto bearing registration No. AN1B/6825 from Bambooflat and proceeded to Mount Harriet. After visiting Mount Harriet, Easwar Bao boarded the same auto bearing registration No. AN1B/6825 at about 10:30 hours and was returning to Bambooflat. While approaching the forest check-post at Mount Harriet, the auto tried to negotiate a turning point on the road at a high-speed, but failed to do so. As a result, the auto fell into the jungle that covered the slope of the valley and overturned after hitting a tree. By reason of the impact, both Easwar Rao and the auto driver were thrown from the vehicle in the surrounding jungle. A few labourers from the Forest Department brought Easwar Rao out of the jungle and took him to Bambooflat in an ambulance for treatment after which Easwar Rao was referred to G.B. Pant Hospital, Port Blair for further treatment. Easwar Rao succumbed to his injuries on 12th September, 2006. The claimants before the Tribunal were the mother and father of the deceased, the opposite party No. 1 before the Tribunal was the owner of the private auto and the opposite party No. 2 was New India Assurance Company Limited.
4. The parents of the deceased claimed Rs. 8,31,000/- from the Tribunal as compensation on the ground that the deceased was a young man of 21 years in good health and would have lived till the age of 80 years and was further the sole earning member of the family. The claimants stated that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the auto driver and was not caused due to any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The case for compensation was also based on the fact that the deceased was working as a private labourer and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month.
5. The opposite party No. 1 being the owner of the auto disputed the case made out by the claimants in its written objection. The opposite party No. 2 being the insurance company filed a written statement disputing the case made out in the application of the claimants under Section 163-A of the Act. The impugned judgment records that only the Insurance Company (opposite party No. 2) contested the case and since the opposite party No. 1 did not appear, the case was decided ex parte against the opposite party No. 1.
6. In the judgment assailed before us, the Tribunal upon considering the respective cases made out by the parties, came to the following findings:
i) The claimant was liable to be compensated with an amount of Rs. 5,80,200/- (Rupees five lakh eighty thousand and two hundred) together with int........