The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the insurer's right of appeal is limited by Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the plenary powers of the writ Court can still be invoked in cases of complete perversity or nullity in the award, or in cases where the Tribunal has exceeded its parameters.

A.B. Pal, J.

1. The short question to be considered in this case is whether the quantum of compensation and the principle employed for working out the same can be called into question by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution on the face of restrictions embodied in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the Act') and the ratio laid down on this issue by the Apex Court and several other High Courts.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Insurer Company and Mr. S. Deb, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. B. Debnath, learned advocate for the Respondents.

3. On 14.11.03, Ranjit Debbarma, a Jr. Engineer under the Government of Tripura was traveling by a jeep TR-01-3476. The said vehicle met an accident due to head-on collision with a Bus bearing No. TR-01-1286 on Assam-Agartala road. Ranjit succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. He is survived by wife, two minor daughters, one minor son and father who claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 33,45,000/-. The learned Tribunal adopted multiplier method of calculation by choosing 17 as the multiplier after determining the age of the deceased being 31 years 4 months on the date of accident. Though in the claim petition Rs. 10,020/- was shown to be the monthly income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal on the basis of the salary certificate issued on 14.11.05 held that Rs. 13,540.50 p. was the salary of the deceased on 14.11.05 and then proceeded to determine the total amount of compensation. Though Rs. 10,020/- was the gross salary of the deceased on the date of his death, but considering his prospect of advancement in future career, Rs. 13,500/- was taken to be average gross future income of the deceased from which one-third was deducted to determine the average loss of dependency which was wrongly brought down to Rs. 10,000/-(Correct amount is 13,500/3 = 4,500; Rs. 13,500-Rs. 4,500 = Rs. 9,000/-). Then surprisingly, the Tribunal again proceeded to work out prospect of future advancement and made a guesswork to re-determine the monthly earning of the deceased at the end of his career had he died a natural death. Rs. 20,000/- was then taken to be the probable monthly earning at the end of his career. With that amount, Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 13,500/- was added (though Rs. 10,020/- was the gross income at the time of his death) and the figure arrived at was Rs. 20,000 + Rs. 13,500 = Rs. 33,500/- which was divided by 2 to again advance the average monthly income at Rs. 16,750/-. From that amount, Rs. 1,000/- only (not one-third of Rs. 16,750/-) was deducted towards payment of Income Tax, Professional Tax and personal expenses and thus, the average amount of monthly dependently came to Rs. 15,800/- (the correct figure should be 15,750). The said amount was multiplied by 12 and 17 which shot up the figure to 32,23,200/-. With that amount, Rs. 2,000/- on account of funeral expenses, Rs. 25,000/- on account of loss of consortium and Rs. 2,500/- on account of loss of estate were also awarded to make the final amount at Rs. 32,52,700/-. Aggrieved, the National Insurance Company Ltd. being the insurer approached this Court by means of this writ petition under Article 227 on the ground of wrong application of the multiplier method ignoring the settled legal principle of uniform application of multiplier method and abnormally excessive amount of compensation arrived thereby.

4. Apparently, the aforesaid grounds of challenge which have been adumbrated in the present writ petition being related to quantum of compensation are beyond the scope of Section 149(2) of the Act. Because of the constriction so imposed by that section, the insurer has chosen to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, the doors of appellate Court being firmly closed. It is no longer resintegra after a line of decisions on the issue by the Apex Court that the grounds which are not legally available to the i