The main legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly in determining the liability for compensation in a motor accident case and the factors to be considered in assessing the amount of compensation.

A.B. Pal, J.

1. The correctness and legality of the judgment and award dated 26.6.1998 passed by learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. (MAC) 213 of 1996 have been called in question in the above three appeals. We, therefore, propose to dispose of them by a common judgment. While the National Insurance Company Ltd. (for short 'insurance company') being insurer of the offending vehicle has put under challenge the judgment and award, the wife and two children of the deceased Samir Debnath have sought enhancement of the award of Rs. 2,67,000/-. Similar prayer for enhancement has been preferred by legal heirs of the mother of the deceased. Thus, the three appeals have fallen for four consideration.

2. A short survey of the pleaded case would show that on 1.4.1996 at about 10.10.30 A.M. deceased Samir Debnath was proceeding towards Bishalgarh on foot when he was dashed down by a jeep bearing the registration No. TR-01-2111. With severe injuries sustained, he was at once shifted to the G.B. Hospital, Agartala where he breathed his last on the same day leaving behind his mother, widow and a daughter. A son was born during pendency of the proceeding instituted by the legal heirs and dependants before the learned tribunal claiming Rs. 6,51,000/- as compensation.

3. The owner and driver of the said vehicle and its insurer as well pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and on that ground alone they claimed that the claim of compensation made by the claimants dependants was not legally sustainable.

4. The learned tribunal after due consideration of the respective pleadings of the rival parties framed following four issues:

(1) Whether Samir Debnath died in a motor accident on 1.4.96 at about 10.30 a.m. near Sipahijala gate on Agartala Bisramganj Road?

(2) Whether said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. TR-01-2111 (Jeep)?

(3) If so what should be the amount of compensation?

(4) Who will be liable to pay compensation to the claimant Petitioners?

5. The claimant wife of the deceased before the learned tribunal examined herself as P.W. 1 in support of her claim that at the time of death in the said motor accident, her husband was aged 28 years and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month. She examined another witness Shri Manik Ch. Debnath (P.W. 2), who stated that the deceased was on his foot on Bishalgarh-Agartala Road. He witnessed a scooter moving along the said road and when it reached near the deceased in front of Sepoyjala Forest Gate, the offending vehicle TR-01-2111 suddenly and violently dashed against the said scooter and the deceased. According to him, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said jeep. That apart, copies of the final report, post mortem report and some other relevant documents were adduced from the claimants' side. The owner, driver or the insurer of the jeep, however, adduced no evidence. These being the materials, the learned tribunal after carefully analyzing the same came to hold that the accident had taken place due to negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep in which deceased Samir Debnath sustained fatal injuries causing his death on the same day.

6. The first two issues having decided thus, the learned tribunal proceeded to decide the quantum of compensation, which the claimants were entitled to get. The monthly income of the deceased was stated to be Rs. 2,000/- by his wife and the said claim was not under challenge. The learned tribunal deducted Rs. 800/- therefrom on account of personal expenditure of the deceased in order to work out the loss of estate arising from the death of the deceased. Multiplying Rs. 1200/- by 12, the annual loss of estate was determined to be the multiplicant with which 18 was chosen to be the multiplier to quantify the amount of compensation at Rs. 2,60,000/-. Another amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of loss of