NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SABITRIRABI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated 20.2.97 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Civil Rule No. 147 of 1997 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

(2.) The facts briefly are that one Balaram Rabi Das died in a motor accident and the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who are his legal heirs filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 7,02,800/- from the owner and the appellant-Insurance Company which was numbered as T.S. (M.A.C.) No. 86/93. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,28,000/- in favour of claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and against the appellant-Insurance Company by its judgment and award dated 18.5.96. The appellant-Insurance Company thereafter filed a Review Application before the said Tribunal which was numbered as Civil Misc. Case No. 123 of 1996. But the said review application was rejected by the Tribunal by order dated 8.1.97. Aggrieved, the appellant- Insurance Company filed a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 147 of 1997, and was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.2.97.

(3.) Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, contended that despite the fact that the Supreme Court had time and again held that the maximum multiplier that should be applied for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation payable to the claimants should not exceed 18, the Tribunal in this case had applied multiplier of 35 while calculating the amount of compensation. Mr. Biswas cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. -Vs- Trilok Chandra & Ors. (1996) 4 SCC 362 for the authority that the maximum multiplier that can be applied by the Tribunal is 18. He contended that the Tribunal in so far as it ignored the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court exceeded its jurisdiction and that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution can set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to recalculate the compensation in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision. To a query by the Court as to why an appeal was not preferred by the appellant against the award of the Tribunal, Mr. Biswas submitted that under sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the grounds for defence available to the Insurer do not include a defence that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. He further explained that a Full Bench of this Court has already held in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. - Vs- Member, MACT, 1992 (2) GLR 391, that the Insurer cannot in an appeal against an award of the Tribunal urge any ground other than those specified in sub- section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Mr. Biswas stated that it is for this reason that the appellant-Insurance Company was unable to file an appeal before this Court under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award of the Tribunal and has instead filed an application under Article 226/227 of the Constitution which was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the impugned judgment and order.