Dipankar Datta, J. - (1.) MAC Case No. 60/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat was registered on an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter the 'Act'). The claimants were three in number. They happen to be the wife, father and mother of a motor accident victim (Aniruddha Guha). While the victim was riding a motor cycle on 29th August, 2009, a bus being driven at a very high speed and in a negligent manner dashed the victim from behind and as a result of which, the victim fell down on the road along with his motor bike and sustained multiple injuries on his person. He was immediately shifted to Baranagar State General Hospital where he breathed his last. At the relevant time, the victim was employed in a private company and was in receipt of Rs. 16,235/- as gross salary. Considering the oral and documentary evidence that were led, the tribunal in its judgment and award dated 13th June, 2017 recorded a finding that the victim died in the motor accident in question and since the offending vehicle which was being driven rashly and negligently was insured by the opposite party no. 2 (hereafter the insurer), it was liable to bear compensation payable to the claimants. Considering the age of the victim, i.e. 23 years, the tribunal proceeded to assess compensation applying the multiplier of 18 and arrived at a figure of Rs. 22,17,460/- which was payable to the claimants on account of compensation along with interest @ 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment within 30 days of such award, failing which the insurer was made liable to pay interest @ 10% per annum.
(2.) The said award is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal under Section 173 of the Act, at the instance of the insurer.
(3.) In the memorandum of appeal, we find four grounds. It has been urged that the tribunal erred in awarding Rs. 22,17,460/- on account of compensation and the assessment made by it is wholly arbitrary, whimsical and bad in law; that, the tribunal was wrong in assessing compensation accepting the pleading of the claimants that the victim's gross salary is Rs. 16,235/-; that, the tribunal ought to have directed the claimants to prove the monthly income of the victim; and that, the award was not in conformity with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.;