JUDGMENT

ORDER:—This petition for grant of special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th January, 1992 of the High Court of Gauhati, Agartala Bench enhancing in appeal the compensation in a fatal accidents action from Rs. 72,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to Rs. 1,50,000/-to the dependants of certain Swapan Das, aged 26 years, who died as a result of the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 28th June, 1984 at Pagla Devta Bari on Assam-Agartala road when a truck hit him.

2. On 24th April, 1990, some six years after the accident, a claim was brought by the parents as well as the widow of the deceased Swapan Das for a compensation of about Rs. 11,00,000/- The deceased was said to be a dry fish manager earning about Rs. 1,500/- per month. The Tribunal did not accept this claim; but estimated the loss of dependancy at Rs. 3,600/-annually and capitalised it on 20 years purchase value for arriving at the figure of Rs. 72,000/-. This sum along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the petition was awarded.

3. The respondents-claimants preferred an appeal before the High Court claiming enhancement. The High Court enhanced the compensation to Rupees 1,50,000/-.

4. Shri Jitender Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the claim was barred by time as, indeed, according to Shri Sharma Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contemplates only a limited power of condonation of delay in filing a claim. That provision reads:

"166(3). No application for such compensation shall be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident;

Provided that the Claims Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of the said period of six months but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time."

Shri Sharma stated that the provisions in the 1988 Act in this behalf detract from their counterpart in the 1939 Act. He submitted that the position that even in respect of claims arising out of accidents occurring before the commencement of the 1988 Act but instituted after its commencement are governed by Section 166(3) of the 1988 Act is settled by a pronouncement of this Court in Vinod Gurudas Raiker v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 1991 (4) SCC 333.

Shri Sharma is right in this submission. The pronouncement of this Court in Vinod Gurudas Raikers case (supra) supports it; but this question had not been raised either before the Tribunal or the High Court. As the law on the matter is settled, it was not applied to the present claim as the petitioner did not raise it either before the Tribunal or before the High Court.

5. It is also true that while the Tribunal determined the compensation applying the method of capitalisation of loss of dependency by taking Rupees 3,600/- as the annual loss of dependency and applying a multiplier of 20, the order of the High Court enhancing the compensation, we are constrained to say, does not contain any cogent reasons. The High Court does not discuss the evidence nor recorded its own findings as to the quantum of the dependency loss. A global award was made on a reasoning which had better be stated in High Courts own words:

"We have considered the memo of appeal, the award and also the monthly income as stated in the petition. We have also made necessary deduction for the personal expenses of the deceased and taking the expectancy of life at 65 years and deducting 30% for lump sum payment, in our opinion, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- would be appropriate compensation in the present case.

Our attention has been drawn to page 9 of the impugned judgment. We are not sure how the calculation has been made by the learned Tribunal."

This is all the reasoning in the judgment. We are afraid that the reasoning is incomplete and cannot by itself support the enhancement. The appropriate method of assessment of co