The other insurer Company did number prefer any appeal.
The law is well settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done in an indirect manner Hence, the present appeal.
Thus, the National Insurance Co. Ltd insurer of the jeep and the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. insurer of the bus were ordered to pay a sum of Rs.16,26,350/ each, along with 6 interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the appellants.
It was further ordered by the Tribunal that the payment had to be paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the award, failing which the interest would be payable at the rate of 9 per annum.
Thus, the award of companypensation of Rs.32,52,700/ arrived at by the Tribunal was definitely on the higher side.
Jirama P.S. Case No.
113 of 2006.
Hence, delay is companydoned.
The owner of the jeep and its insurer National Insurance Company Ltd. as well as the owner of the Bus and the insurer Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. were made parties to the claim.
Having regard to the fact that the delay was caused only on account of the appellants pursuing the remedy of filing a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, as well as the fact that claim is made under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is a beneficial legislation, we deem it fit and proper to companydone the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition.
The appellants herein filed an SLP challenging the same.
TR01 1212 companying from opposite direction.
1 of 2004 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal claiming a total companypensation amounting to Rs.33,45,000/ .
He was working as Junior Engineer Grade I under the Government of Tripura and drawing monthly salary of Rs.13,504.50/ , without imposition of income tax, as per the statutory exemption in the state of Tripura from paying income tax to the members of Scheduled Tribes.
The learned companynsel places reliance on the decision of a Three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.1, wherein it has been held that a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award of the Tribunal in a motor accident case is number maintainable.
It was submitted that the deceased was survived by his parents, wife and two minor children.
The Tribunal by way of judgment and award dated 14.12.2005 held that the age of the deceased being 31 years at the time of the accident, a multiplier of 17 would be applicable and awarded as under Head under which awarded Amount Loss of dependency 32,32,000/ Funeral expenses 2,000/ Loss of companysortium 25,000/ Loss of estate 2,500/ Total 32,52,700/ The Tribunal further ordered that the insurer of both the vehicles involved in the accident, that is, the bus and the jeep were equally liable to pay the companypensation.
TR013476 met with an accident at Assam Agartala Road near Banukumari, at Baramur due to companylision with a Bus bearing No.
The Tribunal further arbitrarily arrived at the figure of Rs.16,750/ per month as the monthly salary of the deceased.
Ltd. v. S. Rajapriya4 The learned companynsel submits that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.10,020/ at the time of the accident, which was wrongly taken as Rs.13,500/ .
He was taken to the nearby Government Hospital namely, GBP Hospital, Agartala where he was declared brought dead.
Thus, the learned companynsel companytends that the learned single Judge has rightly interfered with the quantum of companypensation awarded by the tribunal.
The Writ Appeal preferred by the appellants against the same before the Division Bench of the High Court, came to be dismissed as number maintainable vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2013.
The appellants herein being the legal heirs of the deceased filed Title Suit M.S.C. No.
Vide order dated 05.05.2014, this Court directed the appellants to amend the Special Leave Petition and impugn the judgment and order of the learned single judge as well.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted.
The present appeal has been filed after a delay of 2824 days against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.05.2006 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Tripura at Agartala in Writ Petition C No.
90 of 2003 was registered on the very same day under Sections 270, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code hereinafter referred to as IPC .
Aggrieved by the said Award passed by the Tribunal, the National Insurance Company Ltd. challenged the Award by filing Writ Petition No.
The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal companytentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder On 14.11.2003, the deceased, while travelling in a vehicle Jeep bearing No.
The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal as number maintainable vide judgment and order dated 22.08.2013 holding that the order passed by the learned single Judge was under Article 227 and number under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and thus, the same was number amenable to being challenged by way of a Writ Appeal.
113 of 2006 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the learned single Judge of Gauhati High Court.
On the day of the accident, his age was 31 years and 4 months.
38 of 2006 before the High Court of Tripura, Agartala.
The Division Bench held as under An appeal is the creation of a statute and if the Single Judge has clearly mentioned that he is exercising powers under article 227 against which numberappeal lies, then the mere fact that the petitioner had also invoked the provisions of Article 226 would number be sufficient to hold that an appeal would lie against such an order.
