JUDGMENT 1. Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. K. Das assisted by Ms. Swati Shalini and learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Asadul Haque. 2. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has preferred this Miscellaneous Appeal against the award dated 01.09.2018 in Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Case No.36 of 2017 passed by learned District Judge-I-cum-MACT, Pakur whereby the claimants namely, Smt. Bale Tudu and Sahebram Murmu have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,37,200/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of this claim application till the actual date of payment. Out of the total amounts, 50% shall be kept separately under termed deposit in a Nationalize Bank for a period of three years in the name of claimant no.1 Bale Tudu, but shall not be withdrawn before the expiry of period. However monthly interest shall be paid to her. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned award on the ground that the Insurance Company was debarred by the learned Tribunal from filing the written statement, as such, necessary facts could not be brought on record before the learned Tribunal for proper adjudication of the issues. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has been given liberty to assail the impugned award before this Court. Learned counsel has been asked on what grounds the Insurance Company is assailing the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the permit of the offending vehicle has not been brought on record, as such, there is a violation of terms and condition of the policy. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that learned Tribunal has wrongly given future prospect to the deceased, who was a para-teacher. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that since the written statement could not be filed, as such, the Insurance Company could not take such plea before the learned Tribunal regarding violation of terms and conditions of the policy, by directing the owner of the offending vehicle to adduce those papers before the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that impugned award may be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Asadul Haque has submitted that impugned award has been passed by learned Tribunal after considering the materials brought on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has thus submitted that impugned award may be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants, Mr. Asadul Haque has submitted that impugned award has been passed by learned Tribunal after considering the materials brought on record. If there is any violation of terms and conditions of the policy then Insurance Company can recover the same from owner of the insured vehicle. Since the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its duty by filing written statement in stipulated time, learned Tribunal has decided the claim application directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimants. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that deceased Shibu Murmu aged about 38 years died in motor accident and no application was filed by the Insurance Company directing the owner of the offending vehicle to produce the document nor any evidence has been brought on record by the Insurance Company because of inaction on the part of the Insurance Company the claimants should not suffer from the fruits of beneficial legislation. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that learned Tribunal has rightly paid the compensation in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel for the claimants has further submitted that deceased Shibu Murmu aged about 38 years died while he was unmarried because of motor accident caused by a Tempo bearing registration No.JH-17K- 4337 and the family members are the sufferers. The accident took place on 02.11.2016, as the vehicle got turned turtle. The F.I.R. was lodged as Littipara P.S. Case No.55 of 2016 on 02.11.2016 under Sections 279,337,338,304A of the Indian Penal Code. Chargesheet has been brought on record as exhibit-3 and the Postmortem report of the deceased has been brought on record as exhibit-4. 11. Claimants have examined three witnesses namely, (1) Sahebram Murmu, elder brother of the deceased cum claimant no.2 as C.W.1. (2) Mariyam Hansda, eye witness of the case as C.W.2. (3) Bale Tudu, mother of the deceased cum claimant no.1 as C.W.3. 12. A large number of documents exhibits-1 to 17 have been brought on record, which are profitably quoted hereunder: Exhibit-1 is certified copy(herein after referred as C.C.) of cognizance order dated 19.01.2017 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in G.R. No.783/16, Littipara P.S.Case No.55/16. (3) Bale Tudu, mother of the deceased cum claimant no.1 as C.W.3. 12. A large number of documents exhibits-1 to 17 have been brought on record, which are profitably quoted hereunder: Exhibit-1 is certified copy(herein after referred as C.C.) of cognizance order dated 19.01.2017 passed by learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Pakur in G.R. No.783/16, Littipara P.S.Case No.55/16. Exhibit-2 is C.C. of the F.I.R. pertaining to Littipara P.S. Case No.55 of 2016 registered u/ss 279,337,338 &304A of the IPC against driver cum owner of new tempo Shiv Charan Maraiya. Exhibit-3 is certified copy of charge sheet pertaining to above referred FIR. Exhibit-4 is C.C. of Postmortem Examination Report pertaining to the dead body of Shibu Murmu showing him to be of 35 years. Exhibit-5 is Xerox copy of certificate of registration pertaining to offending vehicle bearing registration no.JH17K/4337. Exhibit-6 is Xerox copy of fitness certificate pertaining to above referred vehicle, showing it to be valid from 02.09.2016 to 01.09.2017. Exhibit-7 is Xerox copy of Insurance certificate bearing its no. of offending vehicle showing it to be valid from 12.07.2016 to 11.07.2017. Exhibit-8 is Xerox copy of tax token of offending vehicle for tax period 22.11.2016 to 21.02.2017. Exhibit-9 is photo copy of voter ID of claimant no.1 Bale Tudu. Exhibit-10 is Xerox copy of Adhar Card of claimant no.2 Sahebram Murmu showing his date of birth as 01.01.1968. Exhibit-11 is attested copy of marks sheet of matriculation pertaining to deceased Shibu Murmu. Exhibit-12 is attested copy of marks sheet of Intermediate pertaining to deceased Shibu Murmu. Exhibit-13 is attested copy of Graduation marks sheet pertaining to deceased Shibu Murmu. Exhibit-14 is attested copy of marks sheet of M.A. pertaining to deceased Shibu Murmu. Exhibit-15 attested copy of Bank Passbook (four sheets) issued from State Bank of India in the name of deceased Shibu Murmu bearing saving Account No.11810101756 showing that victim being Para-teacher was getting Rs.7,400/- per month. Exhibit-16 attested copy of driving licence having its validity on the day of accident in the name of Shivlal Maraiya, the driver of offending vehicle. Exhibit-17 is attested copy of provisional certificate of Matriculation pertaining to deceased Shibu Murmu showing his date of birth as 16.04.1978. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that on the basis of provisional certificate of Matriculation, exhibit-17, the deceased was considered to be 38 years of age as his date of birth is 16.04.1978. Exhibit-17 is attested copy of provisional certificate of Matriculation pertaining to deceased Shibu Murmu showing his date of birth as 16.04.1978. 13. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that on the basis of provisional certificate of Matriculation, exhibit-17, the deceased was considered to be 38 years of age as his date of birth is 16.04.1978. Learned Tribunal has rightly computed the compensation and it is wrong to say that deceased has no future being a para-teacher, as such, learned Tribunal has rightly given future prospect @ 40%. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants/respondents has further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 30,000/- under the conventional head instead of Rs.70,000/- is to be payable to claimants (Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- as loss of estate and Rs.40,000/- as loss of consortium) in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. as reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 though the claimants have not preferred any appeal, which ought to have been enhanced under the conventional head. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that deceased was entitled for future prospect as he was working as a Parateacher and has fixed salary, as such, the argument made by learned counsel for the appellant is of no help for the appellant. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that this Court may not interfere with the impugned award as the same is just and fair compensation though the interest is also on the lower side @ 7% per annum instead of @7.5% contrary to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Dharmpal and Sons Vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation [ 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC)]. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has thus submitted that appeal may be dismissed without interfering with the impugned award as the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence so as to prove that vehicle had no permit. 18. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation [ 2008 (4) JCR 79 (SC)]. 17. Learned counsel for the respondents has thus submitted that appeal may be dismissed without interfering with the impugned award as the Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence so as to prove that vehicle had no permit. 18. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials brought on record and after perusing the impugned award, it appears that no application was filed by the Insurance Company making prayer before the learned Tribunal that owner of the offending vehicle may be directed to produce all the documents related to the vehicle rather the Insurance Company was lethargic in not filing any written statement. The vehicle was duly insured before the Insurance Company on the date of accident i.e. 02.11.2016 vide exhibit-7. 19. Under the aforesaid circumstances, no illegality and perversity has been pointed out before this Court, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. 20. Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal is hereby dismissed. 21. The Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award within a period of 60 days from today 22. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to refund/remit the statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of preferring the appeal within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the requisition by learned counsel for the appellant.