The judgment emphasizes the limited power of the court under Article 227 to interfere only in cases of apparent illegality and perversity, and the distinction between the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution.

R.B. Misra, J.

1. The present writ appeal has been preferred by Bishnu Debnath (after his death, his legal heirs were substituted in the light of this court's order dated 9.6.2004 in CM. Application No. 41 of 2003) against the judgment dated 18.12.2000 passed by this High Court (Single Bench) in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 121 of 2000, preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by New India Assurance Company Ltd. ('the Assurance Company') challenging the validity of the judgment and award dated 4.12.1999 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Court No. 2), West Tripura, Agartala ('the learned Tribunal') in Title Suit (MAC) No. 188 of 1995, whereby a compensation of Rs.5,25,000 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum was awarded by the learned Tribunal with effect from 1.6.1995 and the 'Assurance Company" was directed to pay the said compensation within a period of 3 (three) months from 4.12.1999 failing which interest was liable to be paid at the rate of 16 per cent per annum. Out of the said awarded compensation, Rs.1,00,000 was to be kept deposited in a Fixed Deposit Account in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the claimant late Bishnu Debnath.

2. Learned Tribunal while awarding such compensation took the age of the claimant Late Bishnu Debnath as 20 years at the time of accident and had applied multiplier 20 which was controverted by the 'Assurance Company' in reference to the decisions in [1996] 3 SCR 450 (Lilaben Udesing Gohel, Appellant v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. as well as in [1999] 2 SCR 518 Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Appellant v. P. Munian Babu and Ors. asserting that the multiplier prescribed in the 2nd Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be used as a guiding principle having no strict application.

3. The High Court (learned Singe Judge) in its operative part of order dated 18.12.2000 passed in W.P.(C) 121/2000 has observed as "Having regard to the age of the claimant and the profession he undertaken, I am of the opinion that using of multiplier 20 learned Tribunal committed no error. The jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution is very much circumscribed, as the court is not sitting on appeal over the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Only the apparent illegality and perversity available on the face of the records can be cured by interference in exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution. In case the learned Tribunal went contrary to any mandatory provision and/or ignored any lawful admissible evidence and/or entertain non-admissible evidence in consideration, this court can interfere. So having regard to the limited power of appreciation confined to the aforesaid aspect, I am of the opinion that the learned Tribunal should have assessed the compensation to be awarded in the following line :"

* * *

* * *

Loss of monthly income of the injured should have been assessed at Rs.1,500 (75 per cent of the loss of earning capacity due to the disablement) and using of multiplier appears to be correct. So the amount would come to (1500 x 12 x 2) : Rs.3,60,000 and out of that amount, the petitioner-Insurance Company is liable to pay 50 per cent as the accident admittedly occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles of whom one was not insured with the petitioner. Hence, this petition is allowed partly as indicated above the petitioner-Insurance Company is liable to pay 50 per cent of the total compensation worked out above, i.e., Rs.1,80,000 (50 per cent of Rs.3,60,000) with 12 per cent interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Payment shall be made within a period of 45 (forty-five) days. The remaining Rs.1,80,000 with 12 per cent interest is recoverable by the claimant-respondent No. 1 from the owner of vehicle No. TRT-1539 (Respondent No. S). No costs.

4. The main point/question for adjudication in the present writ appeal is as below:

Whether th