NIRMALA DEBNATH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ appeal has been preferred by Bishnu Debnath (after his death, his legal heirs were substituted in the light of this court's order dated 9.6.2004 in C.M. Application No. 41 of 2003) against the judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by this High Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 121 of 2000, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short 'the Assurance Company') challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 04.12.1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No. 2), West Tripura, Agartala (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in Title Suit (MAC) No. 188 of 1995, whereby a compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was awarded by the learned Tribunal with effect from 01.06.1995 and the 'Assurance Company was directed to pay the said compensation within a period of 3 (three) months from 04.12.1999 failing which interest was liable to be paid at the rate of 16% per annum. Out of the said awarded compensation, Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be kept deposited in a Fixed Deposit Account in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the claimant late Bishnu Debnath.

(2.) Learned Tribunal while awarding such compensation took the age of the claimant Late Bishnu Debnath as 20 years at the time of accident and had applied multiplier 20 which was controverted by the 'Assurance Company' in reference to the decisions in AIR 1996 SC 1605 (Lilaben Udesing Gohel, Appellant Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others as well as in (1999) 4 SCC 22 (Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Appellant Vs. P. Munian Babu and others) asserting that the multiplier prescribed in the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be used as a guiding principle having no strict application.

(3.) The High Court (learned Single Judge) in its operative part of order dated 18.12.2000 passed in W.P.(C) 121/2000 has observed as "Having regard to the age of the claimant and the profession he undertaken, I am of the opinion that using of multiplier 20 learned Tribunal committed no error. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is very much circumscribed, as the Court is not sitting on appeal over the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Only the apparent illegality and perversity available on the face of the records can be cured by interference in exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution. In case the learned Tribunal went contrary to any mandatory provision and/or ignored any lawful admissible evidence and/or entertain non-admissible evidence in consideration, this Court can interfere. So having regard to the limited power of appreciation confined to the aforesaid aspect, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal should have assessed the compensation to be awarded in the following line:"