NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SADHANA LODH

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution against the judgment and award dated 30.3.2000 passed in Case No. Title Suft (MAC) 239 of 1996 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (herein after referred to as "the Act") by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment and award a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/- as compensation with interest @ 11% per annum with effect from 5.6.1996 has been awarded against the petitioner Insurance Company for the death of Dipak Lodh, the son of the claimant- respondent No. 1.

(3.) Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by a Full Bench Judgment of this court in Writ Appeal No. 1.00 of 1998 delivered on 6.4.2000 it has been held that an application for judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an award of the Tribunal under the Act at the instance of the Insurer on grounds other than those mentioned under Section 149 of the Act. Mr. Bhattacharjee vehemently contented that a perusal of the impugned judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has followed the guidelines contained in the Second Schedule of the Act in calculating the amount of compensation. In other words, the Tribunal has adopted the multiplier of 17 while assessing the quantum of compensation. He contended that the provision in the said second schedule of the Act has been ignored inasmuch as the medical expenses as per the said second schedule can be awarded up to a maximum amount of Rs. 15,000/- whereas in the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has awarded the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 42,000/-. He farther argued that in the impugned judgment and award the Tribunal has only considered the age of the deceased while determining the multiplier of 17, but has ignored the following observation of the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others, appellants v. Trilok Chandra & Others, respondents, (1996) 4 SCC 362-