The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the multiplier for determining 'just and fair' compensation in motor accident claims, based on the age of the deceased and the principles laid down in Sarla Verma and subsequent cases.

Wangdi, J.

1. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) to assail the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim at Gangtok (for short the “Claims Tribunal”) dated 29-05-2014 in MACT Case No. 820 of 2013 by which compensation of Rs. 91,62,410.24 (Rupees ninety one lakhs sixty two thousand four hundred ten and paisa twenty four) with interest @ 10% per annum was awarded apportioning it amongst the three Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Claimants @ Rs. 34,35,903.84 (Rupees thirty four lakhs thirty five thousand nine hundred three and paisa eighty four) for the Respondents No. 1 and 2, the father and mother respectively of the deceased, and Rs. 22,90,602.56 (Rupees twenty two lakhs ninety thousand six hundred two and paisa fifty six) for the Respondent No. 3, the brother.

2. The Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 arose out of the death of one Priya Pal in a motor accident on 14-04-2013 at 9th Mile, J.N. Road, East Sikkim, while travelling with her friends as tourists in a vehicle owned by Respondent No. 4.

3. Although in the memo of appeal several grounds have been raised to assail the impugned judgment, Mr. Thupden G. Bhutia, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company, in the course of his argument, confined himself only on the questions of (a) the application of the multiplier with cognate issue of “just and reasonable” compensation and, (b) apportionment of the award of compensation in favour of the Respondent No. 3, the brother of the deceased.

We may, therefore, confine ourselves on these two questions only.

4(i). On the first question, it was submitted that the Claims Tribunal had committed an error in basing the multiplier on the age of the deceased when it ought to have been of the Claimants in view of the following decisions:-

(a) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie: (2005) 10 SCC 720;

(b) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Shanti Pathak (Smt.): (2007) 10 SCC 1;

(c) Shakti Devi v. New India Insurance Company Limited: (2010) 14 SCC 575;

(d) National Insurance Company Limited v. Shyam Singh: (2011) 7 SCC 65; and

(e) Kishan Gopal v. Lala: (2014) 1 SCC 244.

(ii) It was contended that the Trial Court had mis-directed itself in relying upon Sarla Verma (Smt.) v. Delhi Transport Corporation: (2009) 6 SCC 121 on the assumption that it laid down the principle that the multiplier ought to be based upon the age of the deceased when the issue with regard to the application of multiplier had not at all been the subject-matter of adjudication in that case. As per the Learned Advocate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only rationalised the multiplier after considering a number of its earlier decisions. It was contended that by resorting to such erroneous assumption the claimants were awarded exorbitantly high amounts which was opposed to the principle of “just and reasonable” compensation as laid down in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty: (2003) 7 SCC 197.

5. Mr. Ajay Rathi, Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 to 3, supporting the impugned judgment strongly argued that the Claims Tribunal had correctly applied the principle laid down in Sarla Verma's case (supra) in identifying the multiplier. It was contended that the guidelines prescribed in that case for assessing compensation have been consistently followed in the later decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. Reference was made in this regard to the following decisions:

(a) National Insurance Company Limited v. Gurumallamma: (2009) 16 SCC 43;

(b) P.S. Somanathan v. District Insurance Officer: (2011) 3 SCC 566;

(c) Amrit Bhanu Shali v. National Insurance Company Limited: (2012) 11 SCC 738;

(d) Vimal Kanwar v. Kishore Dan: (2013) 7 SCC 476;

(e) Reshma Kumari v. Madan