Bombay High Court
Arvindbhai Kanaiyalal Desai And ... vs A. Balkrishna Bhatt And Ors. on 9 September, 2004
Equivalent citations: II (2005) ACC 68
Author: P Karade
Bench: P Karade
JUDGMENT
P.V. Karade, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent.
2. Heard learned Counsel for both parties. Perused the record.
3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award passed by the Second Addl. District Judge and Addl. Member, M.S.C.T. Palghar, in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 186 of 2001 (Old No. 622 of 1990), on limited ground regarding quantum of interest awarded by the lower Court while allowing the application.
4. The accident took place on National Highway No. 8, Near Amboli, Tal. Dahanu at about 7.30 p.m. on 8th June, 1990 in which one Sandeep Desai died. The appellant preferred M.A.C.A. No. 186 of 2001 (Old No. 622 of 1990) before the M.A.C.T. Thane on 20thNovember, 1990 but later on the same was transferred to the Court of M.A.C.T., Palghar. After hearing both parties and recording evidence, on 14th November, 2003 the Addl. Member, M.A.C.T., Palghar passed judgment and award granting compensation of Rs. 2,03,500/- together with simple interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 1st April, 2003 till the date of payment within six weeks from the date of the order.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of granting interest only at the rate of 8% p.a. and not from the date of the application, the present appeal is preferred inter alia submitting that the impugned order regarding payment of interest on the decretal amount is inequitable, unjust and arbitrary and, therefore, liable to be set aside.
6. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that hearing of the application was delayed due to transfer of the petition from Thane to Palghar for which the applicant was not responsible. Moreover it is submitted that the applicant was not responsible for the delay of adjudication of the matter since it is filed in the year 1990 till disposal in the year 2003, various aspects were involved in the process and hence the findings to that effected recorded by the learned Trial Judge is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the Court has given reasons as to how interest is granted limited to the extent of 8% p.a. and that too from 1st April, 2003 and not from the date of the application and, therefore, the appeal is sought to be dismissed with costs.
7. On perusal of the judgment, it is found that the learned Trial Judge has recorded the findings to the effect that it was the applicant who filed successive applications one after another and thereafter also requested for adjournments time and again which resulted in delay of adjudication and, therefore, he was responsible for the same and hence the interest could not be granted more than what was granted by him and that too from 1st April) 2003 and not from the date of application. However, perusal, of the record shows that the written statement was filed by the respondents in the year 1994 i.e. four years after filing of the application. The record further reveals that the matter was pending at M.A.C.T. at Thane and thereafter it was transferred to Palghar when M.A.CT. at Palghar was established. It is, therefore, obvious that, in such process the matter was delayed and for which the present appellants cannot be held responsible. Moreover, it must be noted that the real loss sustained by the applicants is much more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. Had the widow and sons not been compelled to litigate and had the respondents paid the compensation which they now are required to pay, the amount of the same would have been fetched much more than the amount of interest than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the appeal to the limited extent that the appellants shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the decretal amount from the date of application and not as directed by the learned Trial Judge.
8. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed.
The appellants are held entitled and respondents are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the decretal amount from the date of the application till actual payment or realization within six weeks from the date of this order. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.
