(1.) This appeal under Section 173 (i) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 arises out of an award dated 10.9.96 as passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia in MAC Case No. 55 of 1994. thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs. 3,12,960/- to the claimant-respondents. Few basic facts may now be noted.
(2.) A claim petition u/s 166 of the M.V. Act for compensation was filed by the wife of the deceased handcart puller who on 21,11.94 around 12-05 in the afternoon was knocked down by bus No. AS-03/2678, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with the appellant. Al the time of accident the deceased Suresh Sahani was aged about 30 years. The accident occurred on a public road, just opposite Seupur Tea Estate Hospital. He was earning about 3,000/- a month. The claimant- respondent claimed Rs. 8,92,500/- as compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously urged that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is not only excessive but also arrived at by application of wrong multiplier. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Apex Court as reported in AIR 1993 SC 1259 (National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. M/s Swarnalata Das)
(3.) Before adverting to the finding recorded by the tribunal, it would not be out of place to recall in mind the pleaded case of the appellant. Having taken formal legal pleas about the maintainability of the claim petition denying the right of the claimant to file petition, want of supportive documentary evidence, denouncing the circumstances disclosed in the claim petition as vague and invoking Section 149(2) of the Act, the appellant Insurance Company has averred ; "For that the learned Tribunal erred in law to apply the multiplier of 33 in calculating the compensation amount in complete disregard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in fixing the maximum ceiling of 18 for application of multiplier." In contrast, the object of nationalisation of General Insurance also needs to be recall! in mind.