Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J.

1. THIS appeal and the cross-objection are directed against an award dated 19/6/2008 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and Additional District Judge, Sixth Fast Track Court, Ali- pore, South-24 Parganas, in M.A.C. Case No. 44 of 2007 thereby disposing of an application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the cross-objectors thereby directing the insurance company to pay compensation of Rs. 17,81,380 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till payment.

2. BEING dissatisfied both the insurance company and the claimants have come up before this court by filing the appeal and the cross-objection respectively.

According to claimants on 1.8.2003 the victim, born on 1.4.1953, was travelling by autorickshaw which was hit by a Tata mini truck resulting in the death of the victim. There is no dispute that the mini truck was insured by National Insurance Co. Ltd., the appellant before us.

3. IT appears that claimant was in service with Jute Corporation of India as D.P.C. Manager and used to earn Rs. 20,135 per month as the gross salary. The claimants, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation.

4. IN spite of service of notice, owner of the vehicle did not appear to oppose the claim and the insurance company after taking leave under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act contested the proceeding, although no evidence was adduced on its behalf.

The learned Tribunal by applying the multiplier of 11 on the basis of the aforesaid gross income of the victim arrived at the figure of Rs. 17,81,380 by applying the principles mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Act and directed the insurance company to pay the said amount.

5. THE first point taken by the insurance company in this appeal is that the learned Tribunal below should have deducted the amount of conveyance allowance of Rs. 400 payable to the victim by the employer, professional tax of Rs. 130 and the income tax of Rs. 2,000 payable by the victim every month from the gross income of the deceased and if these deductions were made, the salary would come to Rs. 17,605 a month and by applying the multiplier of 11 and after deduction of one-third as the personal expenses of the victim, the figure of award would have come down to Rs. 15,49,240. It is, however, contended that multiplier of less than 11 should have been applied and no sum beyond the sum assured within the meaning of section 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act could have been directed to be paid by the insurance company.

6. IN the cross-objection filed by the claimants they have contended that the learned Tribunal below failed to consider that the victim was in a stable service and had the prospect of promotion were he alive till his retirement, and if such fact was taken into consideration, the claimants were entitled to get compensation of Rs. 25,00,000. It is pointed out that one of the witnesses for the claimants, who was a co-employee of the victim, specifically asserted that if the victim did not die due to the accident, he would have occupied the post of Marketing Manager. The claimants have also prayed for granting interest not at the rate of 6 per cent per annum but at least at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

Mr. Pratik Prakash Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurance company, has made twofold submission apart from the aforesaid points taken in the memorandum of appeal.

7. ACCORDING to Mr. Banerjee, learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct the insurance company to make payment of any sum beyond the limit mentioned in section 149 (1) of the Act being "a sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder", that being the limit of the policy, and for this purpose, the Tribunal had a duty to first adjudicate what was the sum assured under the policy. ACCORDING to Mr. Banerjee, since this was not done, the award passed was wholly without jurisdiction and the proc