Dnyandeo Karbhari Nagare vs Gitaram Shankar Wakchaure And ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 749 Bom

JUDGMENT

N.V. Dabholkar, J.

1. All four appeals challenge the decisions of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar, which were claims arising out of one and the same accident.

2. On 8-5-1986, at about 09.15 a.m., deceased Madhav and his wife Parvatabai were going on motorcycle. It is said that they were travelling from east towards west and while they were about to cross a square, a goods truck No. MHF-6541, which was travelling from north to south, knocked down the motorcycle in the square. It was the claim of all the claimants that the truck driver drove the truck in total disregard of travelling of motorcycle and signal given by motorcycle driver, i.e. deceased Madhav. It is said that, Madhav and his wife died on the spot and the motorcycle suffered extensive damages.

3. Four Appeals are the appeals against decisions in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) Nos. 187 of 1986, 179 of 1986, 180 of 1986 and 178 of 1986 respectively.

MACP No. 187 (First Appeal No. 356 of 1991) was filed, by Dnyandeo, the brother of the deceased for the purpose of compensation by way of damages because of damage caused to the motorcycle in the accident, as the motorcycle was owned by Dnyaneshwar. As against the claim of Rs. 11,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded damages of Rs. 9500/-.

MACP No. 179 of 1986 (First Appeal No. 357 of 1991) was filed by the children of deceased couple, seeking compensation of Rs. 80,000/- towards death of their mother Parvatabai. The Tribunal has allowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 32,000/-.

MACP No. 180 of 1986 (First Appeal No. 358 of 1991) was also by the children, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards the death of their father Madhav. The claim is granted in full by the Accident Claims Tribunal.

MACP No. 178 of 1986 (First Appeal No. 359 of 1991) was filed by parents of the deceased Madhav, seeking compensation towards death of their son, to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-. This claim is granted by the Tribunal to the fullest extent.

4. All four appeals challenge the denial of interest on the compensation amount. As can be seen from the operative order, the learned Tribunal has granted interest but only by way of default Clause. The Respondents are expected to deposit the amount, as awarded, within two months from the date of the decision of the claim petitions and in case, the amount was not so deposited, only then the amount was to carry interest at 12 per cent per annum, from the date of filing of the petitions till the date of realisation/deposit in the Trial Court.

5. Heard Advocate Shri A.K. Gawali, holding for Advocate Shri K.G. Gawali, for appellants, Advocate Shri A.D. Shinde, holding for Advocate Shri V.D. Hon for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Advocate Shri V.N. Upadhye for Respondent No. 3.

6. Advocate Shri Gawali has placed reliance upon Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which is applicable to the matter at hands, since the accident in question took place in 1986. Section reads as follows:--

"110-CC. Where, any Court or claims tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this chapter, such Court or tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such a rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf."

Both the Advocates agree that the Court is empowered with a discretion to grant interest on the compensation awarded. It was the claim of Advocate Shri Gawali that since the compensation is awarded, the Tribunal ought to have granted some interest on the amount awarded as compensation because, in fact, the amount ought to be paid to the claimant/legal heirs immediately after the accident. Advocate Shri Upadhye for the insurance company urged that Section 110-CC does not lay down a mandate that the tribunal must grant interest. He, however, concedes that the tribunal has not recorded any reasons for denying interest in the present decisions under challenge.

7. Both the lawyers have referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Keshav Bahadur, . Observations of Honourable the Apex Court from paragraph 8 of the judgment can usefully be reproduced :

"The purpose for award of interest is to put pressure on the relevant person not to delay, in making the payment; and to compensate the victim or his dependents at least to some extent for such delay as may occur, by way of interest. In determining the quantum of interest awardable under the relevant Section, the Tribunal acting under Section 110 of the Act corresponding to Section 165 of the new Act can derive direct guidance from Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'the C.P.C.'). In fact, the provision requires payment of interest in addition to compensation already determined. Even though the expression 'may' is used, a duty is laid on the Claims Tribunal to consider the question of interest separately with due regard to the facts, and circumstances of the case."

In paragraph 9 of the reported judgment, the Supreme Court has also recorded a note of caution about the 'discretion' as follows:

"When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion; according to law and not fanciful, but legal and regular."

8. Advocate Shri Upadhye for the insurance company has laid emphasis on the opening part of the observations in para 8 quoted hereinabove. Eventually, the opening part also succeeds by the words and to compensate the victim or his dependents at least to some extent for such delay as may occur, by way of interest. On reference to these observations, it is obvious that interest can be awarded in order to put pressure upon the debtor to make payment promptly and in time, and it also can be awarded for the delay in payment, till the date of payment.

Advocate Shri Upadhye pointed out that except for first five to six months time consumed by Respondent-insurance company in filing its defence before the Tribunal, the insurance company cannot be said to have contributed for the delay. If the Respondents had contributed for the delay caused in disposal, that could have been additional ground to be considered, and more particularly for the purpose of determining the rate of interest, rather than the issue, whether the interest should be awarded or not. Interest will have to be awarded, if the amount is not paid on the date it was due. The submission of learned Counsel Shri Upadhye that the amount became due only on the date, the award was passed, is not acceptable because, the amount becomes due on the date of cause of action, and cause of action arises on the date of accident. The claimants were entitled to be compensated immediately upon occurrence of accident. Had there been some deposit by the insurance company in the tribunal, may be according to its own calculations, the insurance company could have been justified in submitting that no interest be awarded. But merely because some time is consumed in filing defence or determining the compensation, it cannot be sufficient reason for insurance company to claim that no interest may be awarded for the period prior to the date of decisions. If such a submission is accepted, Section 110-CC would stand negated because, Section empowers the Court to grant interest from the date of presentation of the claim, if not from the date of accident.

9. In the absence of any reasons for denial, it must be said that the issue was not at all considered by the tribunal, although the claimants had prayed for interest. I, therefore, feel that the claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of compensation awarded from the date of presentation of the claim petition, till the date of deposit. As rightly pointed out by Advocate Shri Upadhye, the Respondent-insurance company is not responsible for causing delay, much less deliberate delay and, therefore, rate of interest need not be so high so as to appear as penalty imposed. I am, therefore, inclined to grant interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum during the period referred above. It must be clarified that, no fault liability compensation ultimately merges into fault liability compensation. If no fault liability compensation amount is deposited in the trial Court, either before presentation of claim petition under Section 110-AA or on any date subsequent thereto, the amount to the extent of no fault liability compensation shall not carry interest beyond the date of deposit.

10. Appeals are thus allowed, with directions that the claimants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim petitions before the Tribunal till the date of deposit of the amount. The amount of interest shall be deposited in the Tribunal within a period of three months from today and thereafter the amount shall be at the disposal of the Tribunal for the purpose of passing appropriate orders with regard to payment, apportionment etc.

Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of with no order as to costs.