Satyabrata Sinha, ACJ - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and award dated 15.7.92 passed by Sri H K. Paul, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hooghly whereby and whereunder he directed the appellant herein to pay compensation of Rs. 1,29,900/- to the claimants. The said amount of compensation was computed at on the following basis : JUDGEMENT_28_LAWS(CAL)9_1999.html
(2.) The learned Claims Tribunal upon taking into consideration the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties came to the conclusion that the victim who was 28 years old at the time of her death, was earning a sum of Rs. 300/-p m. Before the learned Claims Tribunal the evidences had also been adduced to the effect that she was earning a sum of Rs, 100/- by giving private tution. The learned Claims Tribunal, however, held : "But it should be noted that a full time teacher cannot earn by private tuition. That is illegal. As such the claimants are not at all entitled to get the said illegal earnings of the victim which she earned by private tuition."
(3.) Mr. Das the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Inter alia, submitted that the learned Tribunal below erred in allowing 37 as 'multiplier' for the purpose of determination of the amount of compensation and, thus, committed a legal error. The learned Counsel submitted that in any event, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.R.T.C. v. Susamma Thomas reported in (1994)1 TAC 323, the learned Tribunal below could not have applied multiplier exceeding 18.;