Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) The victim was getting Rs. 15,000/- per month. He was to celebrate his birthday attaining the age of 50 years on November 15, 2001. Just twelve days before his birthday, he met with an accident and unfortunately, passed away leaving his wife and two daughters. The claimants being the widow, daughters and the mother approached the Tribunal for appropriate compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Insurance Company contested the claim, however, the Tribunal ultimately, held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation by deducting one-third as personal expenses. The Tribunal assessed the annual income at Rs. 1.2 lakh. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 13 and assessed the compensation at Rs. 15.6 lakhs. The Tribunal also granted Rs. 5000/- as loss of consortium and Rs. 2000/- as funeral expenses. The Tribunal permitted the Insurance Company to get credit of the no-fault liability to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the said act of 1988. The Tribunal declined to award any interest.
(2.) The Insurance Company has come up in appeal. Mr. Kamal Krishna Das, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that although various points were raised in the Memorandum of Appeal, the Insurance Company is principally aggrieved for use of wrong multiplier. According to Mr. Das, it was a case under Section 166 of the said Act of 1988. The Tribunal could not have mechanically applied the multiplier of 13 considering the age of the deceased. Mr. Das relies on two unreported decisions of this Bench in the case of Smt. Anu Rani Bakshi & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (FMA 497 of 2007) dated February 27, 2012 and in the case of Smt. Rekha Chakraborty & Anr. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., (FMA 327 of 2010) dated February 24, 2012 .
(3.) Per contra, Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Bindu & Ors. reported in 2009 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases page 705 : 2009 (1) T.A.C. 801 (SC) and contends that the multiplier of 13 was correctly applied.;