Judgment ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. 1. THE claimant appellant no.1 was the widow, the appellant nos.2, 3 and 4 were the children and appellant no.5 was the mother of the victim who died in the unfortunate incident. THE appellants claimed that he was a self-employed person working as rickshaw puller earning rupees three thousand per month. THE appellants alleged that the victim was hit and run over by a trekker bearing registration no. W.B. 33/8920. THE Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the claimants could not prove the involvement of the subject vehicle. Hence, the respondent Insurance Company being the insurer of the subject vehicle did not have any liability. 2. THE records would depict, on April 3, 2007 at 5 a.m. Mohoranjan Pradhan, the victim was taking tea standing in front of the tea stall of Surendranath Dutta (PW-4) when a trekker bearing no.W.B.33/8920 came at a high speed from Sautia towards Mohanpur in the district of Paschim Midnapur. THE vehicle was being run with high speed and in rash and negligent way. THE driver lost control and dashed the victim in front of the tea stall. THE passengers of the offending trekker and the local people stopped the trekker and tried to carry the deceased by the same vehicle to the Hospital. However, the driver fled away with the said vehicle. He was taken to the Primary Health Centre, then to Medinipur Medical College and subsequently, to N.R.S. Medical College where he breathed his last on the next day. One Sisir Kumar Nandy claiming to be an eye-witness lodged a complaint on the next day with Mohanpur Police Station which was registered as P.S. Case No.16/2007. However, in the complaint, he did not mention the number of the trekker. In his affidavit-evidence he asserted that subject vehicle was not involved. Later, it transpired that he was maternal uncle of the owner of the trekker. THE owner of the trekker Asit Dey Opposite Party witness no.1admitted in his deposition that Sisir was his maternal uncle. The appellant no.1, the widow was not present at the time of accident. She was rustic lady and depended on the hearse evidence of the ocular witnesses. It transpired that Sisir was also related to the deceased. Anuradha Dutta (PW-2) also witnessed the accident. She was travelling by the subject trekker. The appellant no.1, the widow was not present at the time of accident. She was rustic lady and depended on the hearse evidence of the ocular witnesses. It transpired that Sisir was also related to the deceased. Anuradha Dutta (PW-2) also witnessed the accident. She was travelling by the subject trekker. She asked the driver to stop who ignored such caution and fled away. In cross-examination, she vividly described the incident. 3. SUREN Dutta (PW-4), was the tea stall owner. He was also a ocular witness. He deposed that the trekker named as Baba Loknath having registration no.W.B.-33/8920 hit the victim. He also deposed that he gave statement before the Police as well as the learned Judicial Magistrate on the next day being April 4, 2007 where he disclosed the number of the vehicle. In cross-examination, he deposed that he knew Sisir Nandy who was not present at the place of occurrence. He (Sisir Nandy) did not witness the occurrence. 4. O.P.W. 1 (Asit Dey) being the owner of the vehicle deposed that due to mechanical disturbance the vehicle was under repair in the garage of Raju Dhara and the vehicle was released on April 10, 2007. Pertinent to note, the date of release was written in hand and there was interpolation. In cross-examination, he admitted that Sisir was his maternal uncle. He also admitted that the trekker was plying in the said route. OPW-2 (Sisir Nandy) asserted that he witnessed the incident. He lodged the written complaint to the Police on the next day. According to him, an unknown vehicle dashed the victim and not the subject vehicle. Raju Dhata (OPW-3) was a motor mechanic by profession. He deposed that the vehicle was under repair in his garage. The dates were typed out in the affidavit having interpolation by pen through. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was a road side garage having no trade licence. The learned Tribunal placed heavy reliance on the FIR which was lodged by the Sisir, the uncle of the owner being vitally interested in protecting his nephew. On a combined reading of the evidence so discussed above, it is clear that the incident happened early in the morning on April 3, 2007. Had Sisir been so interested in lodging the complaint he had a full day for the same. He did not do so. On a combined reading of the evidence so discussed above, it is clear that the incident happened early in the morning on April 3, 2007. Had Sisir been so interested in lodging the complaint he had a full day for the same. He did not do so. The victim died on the next day i.e. April 4, 2007. Sisir lodged the FIR on that date. Anuradha Dutta (PW-2) was an independent witness. She could not be shaken in cross-examination. Suren (PW-4) another independent witness corroborated the incident. He categorically mentioned the name of the trekker and the number. Significant to note, the owner being the OPW-1 admitted that the trekker was having the route permit and was plying in that route. Hence, the trekker was known to the people of the locality. It is unfortunate that the incident occurred at 5 O’clock early in the morning and Police did not register any case through out the day. The victim was initially taken to the Primary Health Centre and there after to the Medinipur Hospital and subsequently to NRS Medical College. In all these three stages Police must have been informed by the Hospital authority about the accident. Hence, the FIR lodged on the next day that too, by an interested party who obviously looked after the interest of the owner by protecting him was not safe to be relied upon. The learned Tribunal possibly overlooked this aspect. His statement in FIR could not be taken as sacrosanct denying relief to the appellants when they were supported by independent witnesses referred to above. In our view, the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim application. We cannot overlook the fact that on being cross-examined the Tea Stall owner categorically deposed that Sisir was not present during the accident. Sisir also did not explain why he did not lodge the FIR on the date of accident itself. What prompted him to lodge the FIR on the next day, is not clear. Rather, the possibility of safeguarding the interest of the owner, cannot be brushed aside. 5. WE are of the view that the claim application ought to have been allowed. Question thus remains, what would be the appropriate relief to be given to the claimants. The incident occurred in 2007. After five years have passed, if we remand this matter back to the Tribunal it would again delay the process. 5. WE are of the view that the claim application ought to have been allowed. Question thus remains, what would be the appropriate relief to be given to the claimants. The incident occurred in 2007. After five years have passed, if we remand this matter back to the Tribunal it would again delay the process. The victim left him surviving his widow, aged mother and three minor children. They must be suffering the onslaught. Considering such aspect, we feel, interest of justice would sub-serve if we proceed to assess the compensation instead of remanding the issue back to the Tribunal that would delay the process. 6. THE victim was a rickshaw puller. His wife claimed that he was earning rupees three thousand per month. We intend to accept such assertion. We are prompted to do so being encouraged by a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Devi Vs. Md. Tabbar and Another reported in 2008 Volume-II West Bengal Law Reporter (Supreme Court) Page-585. The victim died at the age of thirty, multiplier of seventeen would be appropriate. We thus proceed to asses the compensation as follows :- Monthly Income of the victim : Rs.3000.00 Yearly Income of the victim : 12xRs.3000.00 Rs.36000.00 Less Deduction (1/3 rd) : Rs.12000.00 Net Yearly Income : Rs.24000.00 Applying Multiplier of 17 and : 24000x17 after applying Multiplier Rs.408000.00 Loss of estate, loss of : Rs.9500.00 consortium, funeral expense -------------------------------- Total Rs.4,17,500.00 7. THE respondent would pay interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum on the from June 7, 2007 being the date of claim application until it is actually paid. 8. THE Insurance Company would make payment of the said sum in equal proportion to the appellants to be sent to them at their recorded address through Account Payee Cheques by registered post with acknowledgement due. THE payment must reach the claimants within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. Lower Court Records be sent down at once. THE appeal is disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat copy will be given to the parties, if applied for.