- (1.) This Court has heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. After hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, this Court is of the view that certain important questions of law have arisen in the instant case.
(2.) The facts of the case, briefly, are as follows: One Maila Tamang suffered an accident on 20.12.2001 and he died. A claim petition was filed by the widow and the daughter of the said Maila Tamang, since deceased. The learned Tribunal concerned disposed of the said claim petition by judgement/award dated 1.4.2003 whereby the said learned Tribunal found that the gross income of Maila Tamang was Rs. 10,500/- per month and the deductions were Rs. 3,684. The said figure Rs. 3,6847- comprised of C.P.F. Rs. 1,074/-, C.P.F.(L) Rs. 2,500/- and P.T. Rs. 110/-. The learned Tribunal found that the said Maila Tamang died at the age of 58 years and applied the multiplier of 8 and came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 3,84,000/-. The learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company concerned to make the payment within one month failing which the amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realisation.
(3.) Apart from the other questions of law involved in the present appeal, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the learned Tribunal below erred in applying the multiplier of 8 in terms of the 2nd schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 since it has already been decided in a number of cases that in cases where the deceased had crossed 50 years of age, it is fit and proper that the years remaining in service should be taken into consideration for the purpose of fixing the multiplier. According to the learned Advocate for the respondent-Insurance Company, since the victim was 58 years of age when the accident took place and the victim died, the multiplier of 2 should be applied.;