NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. SURJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above named Insurance Company has preferred this appeal on the quantum being fixed by the 1st Additional District Judge -cum -Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Sasaram in Claim Case No. 43 of 1995 vide judgment and award dated 29.8.1998. A compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,20,416/ - together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was awarded.

(2.) BALWANT Singh @ Balbant Singh predecessor of the claimant died by a vehicular accident at G.T Road. At the time of the death the deceased was having a vehicle repairing garage. The deceased was earning Rs. 5,000/ - per month. At the time of death he was 50 years of age. The claim of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs, had been made. The claim case was contested and it was held by the tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the offending motor cycle which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company at the relevant time, and after assessing compensation by application of multiplier method the aforementioned compensation has been awarded in favour of the claimants -respondents. Murari Krishna Prasad Sinha Versus State Of Bihar

(3.) REGARDING the maintainability of such challenge with regard to the fixation of quantum the learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents have urged that restrictions imposed by section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Insurance Company is debarred from challenging the award on merit including the quantum of compensation. He relied on a decision of single Bench of this Court as reported in 1996 (2) PLJR 850. It is true that there is restriction imposed by the Act itself with regard to the points of challenge available to the Insurance Company. If the quantum has been arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record then the same cannot be challenged by the Insurance Company but then if in fixing of the quantum the Tribunal has committed error on the principle itself then definitely the Insurance Company comes out from the restrictions to challenge the same before the appellate Court. Here in the present case the appellant is not challenging the fixation /determination of the income of the deceased or the monthly dependency arrived at by the learned Tribunal. The only grievance of the Insurance Company is that the learned Tribunal has applied a wrong multiplier in arriving at the quantum of compensation and did not adhere to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in that score. Thus, I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted in view of the position and circumstances in the present case. When there is error on the principle on which the quantum has been assessed then such wrong principle can be challenged by the Insurance Company.