C.R. Sarma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12.1.2000 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in case No. TS(MAC) No. 74 of 1999.

2. The fact of the case, in a nutshell, as may be necessary for disposal of this appeal, is set out herein below:

On 10.1.99, Sri Sudip Kumar Sutradhar (hereinafter called 'the deceased') aged about 19 years was proceeding to Agartala from Melaghar in a vehicle, under Registration No. TR 01A 0252. The vehicle, which was in speed, dashed against a road side tree near Charilam (Bishramganj) as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and chest. The deceased was removed to G.B. Hospital for treatment, wherein he succumbed to the injuries on the next date. The father of the deceased, as claimant filed a claim petition, seeking compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs. The claimant, in his claim petition stated that the deceased, who was aged about 19 years, used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as manager-cum-carpenter. The said vehicle, which belonged to Smt. Dalia Sutradhar, w/o late Narayan Sutradhar of town Borodowali, Agartala averred in her written statement, that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd.

3. The owner of the said vehicle and the Insurance Company contested the claim by filing two separate written statements. The owner of the vehicle did not deny the accident and pleaded that, the vehicle being insured with the National Insurance Company, at the relevant period, compensation, if any, should be paid by the said insurer.

4. The National Insurance Company Ltd., by filing a written statement, stated that the alleged accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and that the said vehicle was not responsible for the same. It has also been pleaded that the claimant failed to disclose all information about the deceased and that the claim was false and liable to be rejected. The insurer further disputed the validity of licence of the said vehicle as well as the driver. The said contesting Insurance Company also denied the claim of the claimant that the deceased was a manager cum carpenter and that his monthly income was Rs. 3,000/-. The claim towards the medical expenses in respect of the deceased has also been disputed by the insurer.

5. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned Member of the Tribunal framed the following issues for determination:

(i) Whether deceased Sudip Sutradhar died in a vehicular accident on 11.1.99 at about 3.00 - 4.00 pm due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. TR-01A-0252?

(ii) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to get compensation, if so what should be the amount of compensation and who should be held liable for payment?

6. The claimant-Petitioner examined two witnesses. The opposite party failed to examine any witness in support of their pleas. The learned member of the Tribunal, while deciding the issue No. 1 aforesaid, came to the finding that the deceased sustained injury in a vehicular accident on the fateful day due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and died in hospital on 11.1.99. Accordingly, the Issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the claimant.

7. While deciding the Issue No. 2 and considering the claimant's plea that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as manager of the 'Ma Cabinet', the learned trial Judge observed that as the deceased was a student of Class-VIII, he could not work as a manager of a carpentry business and accordingly, arrived at the finding that a youth of 19 years of age could easily earn Rs. 2,000/-per month by doing manual labour. On the basis of the said finding, the learned trial Judge calculated the annual income of the deceased at Rs. 24,000/- (2000 x 12). As the deceased died as a bachelor, considering the age of the mother of the deceased (40 years), the learned trial Judge applied the multiplier 16 to calculate the loss of dependency an