Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and award dated 31st July,1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Court, Jalpaiguri in M.A.C. Case No. 189 of 1994 whereby and where under a compensation for a sum of Rs. 1,92,000/- has been awarded.
(2.) Mr. Das, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter alia, submitted that although pursuant to an order made by the learned Tribunal under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited, the learned Tribunal has directed deduction of Rs. 12,500/- only. It was further submitted that the amount of compensation awarded is on the high side. The learned Counsel contends that in any event, no interest could have been awarded for future loss of earning and in support of the said contention reliance has been placed on R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., reported in (1995)1 ACJ 366 .
(3.) So far as the second contention raised by the learned Counsel is concerned, the same is covered by recent decisions of the Apex Court in Shankarayya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2968: 1998(3) Indian Civil Cases (S.C.) 250 and Chinnama George & Ors. v. N.K. Raju & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SCW 1321 . The same view has been taken by various Division Benches of this Court including in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Namita Das & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 Calcutta 145 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Smritikona Mistri & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 Cal. LT (HC) 24 , wherein it has clearly been held that an Insurance Company is not entitled to maintain the appeal apart from the ground contained in section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.;