JUDGMENT :

Dipankar Datta, J. - A road accident involving the use of a motor vehicle on December 11, 2004 claimed the life of the appellant's daughter (hereafter 'the victim' for short) at a relatively young age of 22 years. Distressed by such premature death, the appellant presented a claim application dated February 8, 2005 for compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter 'the 1988 Act' for short) before the relevant motor accident claims tribunal (hereafter 'the MACT' for short). The application was decided by the MACT by its judgment and award dated December 17, 2008. The opposite party no.2 before the MACT, i.e., the insurer of the offending vehicle (hereafter the insurer), was held liable to compensate the appellant in a sum of Rs. 1,14,000.00. Such sum was directed to be paid to the appellant by the insurer within 30 (thirty) days, failing which the insurer was required to pay simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said sum from the date of presentation of the claim application till payment is made.

2. Dissatisfied with the paltry sum awarded by the MACT as compensation as well as its omission to award interest from the date the claim application was presented, the appellant exercised the right guaranteed by Section 173 of the 1988 Act and preferred this appeal on February 27, 2009.

3. It is not in dispute that the insurer effected payment of compensation, as determined by the MACT, in favour of the appellant within 30 days of the award and thereby evaded payment of interest to her.

4. Mr. Ashique Mondal, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the MACT erred in determining compensation and in not awarding interest and, therefore, she is entitled to enhanced compensation.

5. First, it was contended that the MACT, without justification, discarded the evidence of the appellant that the victim was earning Rs. 2,000.00 per month and proceeded to determine loss of dependency as if the victim was a non-earning person. Mr. Mondal urged that instead of reckoning Rs. 15,000.00 as the notional annual income of the victim as per the Second Schedule appended to the Act, the loss of dependency ought to have been worked out by the MACT on the basis of Rs. 24,000.00 as the victim's notional annual income.

6. Secondly, Mr. Mondal contended that the MACT selected a wrong multiplier, i.e., 11, based on the age of the appellant. Having regard to the age of the victim and the Second Schedule, the appropriate multiplier was 17 and the MACT, he contended, grossly erred in not so selecting for determination of compensation.

7. Thirdly and finally, the omission of the MACT to grant interest from the date of presentation of the claim application was challenged relying on the provisions of Section 171 of the 1988 Act and the decisions of coordinate Benches of this Court in Purnima Saha v. United India Insurance Company Ltd,2007 1 CHN 537: Kohinur Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2008) AIR Calcutta 84 and, Rekha Dutta v. Ram Avatar Lohia,2009 3 TAC 783.

8. Mr. Mondal was also heard to advance a submission based on a development of recent origin. He brought to our notice a notification dated May 22, 2018 issued by the Central Government in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 163-A of the 1988 Act (hereafter 'the said notification' for short), and prayed for application thereof to determine compensation payable to the appellant.

9. Sub-Section (1) of Section 163-A of the 1988 Act ordains that notwithstanding anything contained therein or in any other law for the time being in force, upon proof of death in an accident involving the use of a motor vehicle, compensation is payable either by the owner of such vehicle or the authorized insurer thereof as indicated in the Second Schedule to the legal heirs of the victim. The Second Schedule appended to the 1988 Act, referring to Section 163-