- (1.) THE Judgment of the Court was as follows : The Order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Court, Jalpaiguri in MAC Case No. 37 of 2007 of 18.12.2008 has been brought in appeal on two fold grounds : (1) Application of the multiplier which was felt by the Appellants was not correct and (2) Award of interest on regular basis.
(2.) THESE are the two points which subsist for our discussion in view of the otherwise well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal where the incident has been proved and the claim petition has been accepted. Shri Banerjee for the Appellants has submitted that as the age of the deceased who was a child of 16 years the multiplier ought to have been 16. In the event if it was accepted that it would be criteria for determination of the age, whereas Shri Banerjee has submitted that it has been borne out from the evidence that the parents of the deceased were 36 and 30 respectively. As such, the average age according to him as found by the learned Tribunal was 33 years, so the multiplier would be 17 and not 11, as found by the learned Tribunal and he relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in U.R State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Trilok Chandra and Others, (1996)4 SCC 363 and P. S. Somanathan and Other v. District Insurance Officer and Another, (2011 )3 SCC 566; (2011)3 WBLR (SC) 750 in support of his contention that the multiplier which is maximum is required to be applied.
(3.) SMT . Sengupta fo. the Company has disputed this point, raised by Shri Banerjee. According to her since it was the death of a child he was to be judged on the basis of notional income by application of the multiplier of 11 which was correctly held by the learned Tribunal and an award of Rs.1,10,000.00 was assessed. She has further submitted that at best Rs.1,54,000.00 could have been given but as already on the basis of notional income criteria Rs.1,10,000.00 have been awarded which has been accepted in the meantime by the Appellants, no interference in appeal is called for.;