The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the amended Act to the application for compensation and the rationality of the application of the multiplier method in calculating compensation.

Amitava Lala, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurance Company against a judgment and award passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gorakhpur on 20th April, 2000, under a claim petition filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', 1988). Against the same judgment and award cross objection No. 121257 of 2002 has also been filed. Therefore, both are being decided by this common judgment.

2. The deceased died in a road accident at Nepal on 13th August, 1992. He was unmarried at that time. He left behind his parents and brother. A claim petition was filed by his parents before the Tribunal at Gorakhpur in 1995. The claim petition became successful. A sum of Rs. 7,70,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. Liability of the owner and Insurance Company for payment of compensation was made joint and several. Award of interest was also allowed at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition till the actual date of payment. The share of compensation in favour of the claimants i.e. rather and mother was made equal. Five issues were framed thereunder which are as follows:

1. Whether this court had jurisdiction to try this claim petition for the accident alleged to have taken place within territory of Nepal in view of para-9 of the claim petition?

2. Whether the accident in question had occurred on 13.8.92 near Narayn Ghat Nepal due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van No. DL-4CB-1679 by its driver stated to be dead resulting into the death of Ashish Bansal? If so its effect?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any amount of compensation? If so what is the reasonable amount of compensation and who amongst the OPs. are liable to pay?

4. Whether there was valid and effective insurance of this Maruti Van No. DL-4CB-1679 on the date and time of accident? If so its effect?

5. Whether the driver of Maruti Van No. DL-4CB-1679 in question had valid and effective driving licence On the date and time of accident? If so its effect?

3. Issue No. 1 is related to the question of jurisdiction. We have gone through Section 166(2) of the Act, 1988 for considering such question which is as follows:

Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be made, at the option of the claimant, either to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred or to the Claims Tribunal within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the claimant resides or carries on business or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, and shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed.

4. On the basis of said Sub-section either of the places as aforesaid i.e. appropriate place of accident at Nepal, appropriate place of residence/carrying on business of the claimants at Agra, Uttar Pradesh or appropriate place of residence/carrying on business of the respondents i.e. owner of the truck and/or Insurance Company at Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh, the respondents under the claim petition, are the appropriate places for hearing of the claim petition. Since the claim petition has been filed in the jurisdiction of Gorakhpur, we hold that the Tribunal at Gorakhpur had the jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the claim petition of the claimants.

5. Secondly, in the memorandum of appeal a specific point is taken by the appellant that when the accident took place, Section 166 of the Act, 1988 was not amended, therefore, by virtue of unamended Section 166(3) of the Act, 1988, no application could lie unless it is made within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the accident. However, the Tribunal may entertain the application after the expiry of such period but not later than twelve months, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. In the instant case the accident took place on 13th Au