Bombay High Court
Vandanabai @ Bebibai Tukaram & Ors vs Yusuf Beg Hashid Beg & Ors on 3 August, 2017
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 1005.2004FA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1005 OF 2004
Aadhar Dayaram Patil
Age : 35 years, Occu : Skilled Labour,
R/o Nagaon, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. Yusuf Beg Rashid Beg
Adult, Occu : ST Driver,
R/o. Shirpur Bus Depot,
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
2. Owner of ST Bus No. MH-20/D-3427
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation
Dhule Division, Dhule.
3. Kedarmal Jakhettiya,
Adult, Occu : Dumper Truck Owner,
R/o M/s Keti Constructions,
31/6 Sneh Nagar, Indore (M.P.)
4. Insurer of the Dumper Truck,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, Dhule .. Respondents
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1006 OF 2004
1. Smt. Vasantabai Hansa @ Thansing Bhil,
Age : 30 years, Occu : Household,
2. Miss. Savita Hansa @ Thansing Bhil
Age : 4 ½ years (Minor)
Through her guardian, petitioner No.1
Both R/o Nagaon, Tal. Nandurbar
District : Nandurbar .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 00:06:29 :::
2 1005.2004FA
VERSUS
1. Yunus Beg Rashid Beg,
Adult, Occu : Bus Driver,
R/o Shirpur S.T. Bus Depot,
Tal. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule
2. Owner of ST Bus No.MH-20/D-3427
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation
Dhule Division, Dhule.
3. Kedarmal Jakhettiya,
Adult, Occupation : Dumper Truck Owner,
R/o M/s Keti Constructions,
31/6 Sneh Nagar, Indore (M.P.)
4. Insurer of the Dumper Truck
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, Dhule. .. Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1007 OF 2004
Vansabai Ananda Pawar (Bhil)
Age : 45 years, Occu : Household,
R/o. Nagaon, Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar. .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. Yusuf Beg Rashid Beg
Age : Adult, Occu : S.T. Driver,
R/o. Shirpur S.T. Bus Depot,
Tq.Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
2. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Dhule Division, Dhule.
(Owner of S.T. Bus No. MH-20-D-3427)
3. Kedarmal Jakhetiya
Age : Adult, Occu : Dumper Owner,
R/o. M/s. Keti Constructions,
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 00:06:29 :::
3 1005.2004FA
31/6, Sneh Nagar, Indore (M.P.)
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, Dhule Branch,
Dhule (Insurer of Dumper truck). .. Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1008 OF 2004
Kacharu Chintaman Bhil,
Age : 30 years, Occu : Skilled Labour,
R/o Shirpur S.T.Bus Depot,
Tal. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. Yusuf Beg Rashid Beg,
Adult, Occu: S.T. Driver,
R/o. Shirpur Bus Depot,
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
2. Owner of S.T. Bus No.MH-20/D-3427
Divisional Controller, Maharashtra
State Road Transport Corporation
Dhule Division, Dhule.
3. Kedarmal Jakhettiya, Adult,
Occupation : Dumper Truck Owner,
R/o. M/s Keti Constructions,
31/6 Sneh Nagar, Indore (M.P.)
4. Insurer of the Dumper Truck,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, Dhule .. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1009 OF 2004
1. Smt. Vandanabai @ Bebibai Tukaram Patil,
Age : 26 years, Occupation : Household work
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 00:06:29 :::
4 1005.2004FA
2. Miss. Sapna Tukaram Patil
Age : Minor, Occu : Nil,
Petitioner No.2 being minor
Through her Guardian Petitioner No.1.
Both Resident of Nagaon,
Tal. & Dist. Nandurbar. ..Appellants
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. Yusuf Beg Rashid Beg,
Age : Adult, Occu : S.T. Depot,
R/o. Shirpur, S.T. Bus Depot,
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
2. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Dhule Division, Dhule.
(Owner of S.T. Bus No. MH-20-D-3427)
3. Kedarmal Jakhetiya,
Age : Adult, Occu. : Dumper Truck Owner,
R/o. M/s Keti Construction,
31/6 Sneh Nagar, Indore (M.P.)
4. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, Dhule Branch,
Dhule.
5. Dayaram Budha Patil,
Age : Adult, Occu : Agriculturist
6. Sau. Laxmibai Dayaram Patil
Age : Adult, Occu : Household work
Nos.6 & 7 Resident of Nagaon
Tal. & Dist. Nandurbar. .. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1010 OF 2004
Shantilal Ziparu Pardeshi
Age : 36 years, Occu : Police Constable
and Agriculturist, Resident of Nandurbar,
Tal. & Dist. Nandurbar .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimant)
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 00:06:29 :::
5 1005.2004FA
VERSUS
Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Dhule Division, Dhule. .. Respondent.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.1011 OF 2004
Devidas Chindha Bhil,
Age : 35 years, Occupation : Skilled Labour,
R/o. Nagaon, Tal. & Dist. Nandurbar .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. Yusuf Beg Rashid Beg,
Age : Adult, Occu : S.T. Driver,
R/o. Shirpur S.T. Bus Depot,
Tq. Shirpur, Dist. Dhule.
2. The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,
Dhule Division, Dule.
(Owner of S.T. Bus No. MH-20-D-3427)
3. Kedarmal Jakhetiya,
Age : Adult, Occu : Dumper Owner,
R/o. M/s Keti Constructions,
31/6, Sneh Nagar, Indore (M.P.)
4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Manager, Dhule Branch,
Dhule (Insurer of Dumper truck) .. Respondents
. . . . . . . .
In all matters
Advocate for Appellant : Shri N.B. Suryawanshi
Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2 : Shri P.K. Joshi
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Shri D.S. Bagul
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Shri A.B. Gatne
. . . . . . . .
::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 00:06:29 :::
6 1005.2004FA
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
Dated: August 03, 2017
PER COURT :-
. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants
and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. In all these matters, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dhule, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') has awarded the
interest on the amount of compensation conditional from the date of
award if the amount is not paid within one month from the date of
award. In the present appeals, the challenge is restricted only to the
aforesaid part of order pertaining to the award of interest. According
to the appellants, the Tribunal has erred in awarding the conditional
interest. It is the contention of the appellants that, the Tribunal must
have allowed the interest on the amount of compensation from the
date of filing of the claim petition by the respective claimants till
realization of the amount of compensation as awarded by the
Tribunal.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation and for United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
submitted that, under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), it is the discretion of the
7 1005.2004FA
Tribunal whether to award interest in addition to the amount of
compensation and if yes, at what rate and from which date. The
learned Counsel submitted that, once the Tribunal has exercised the
said discretion based on the facts and circumstances of the case, no
interference is warranted in the order so passed by the Tribunal.
4. The only issue which falls for my consideration in these
appeals is, 'whether the Tribunal has erred in not awarding the
interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.'
5. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the learned
Counsel appearing for the parties, I deem it appropriate to reproduce
herein below Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which
provides for award of interest, where the claim is allowed.
"171. Award of interest where any claim is
allowed.- Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for
compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may
direct that in addition to the amount of compensation
simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from
such date not earlier than the date of making the claim
as it may specify in this behalf."
6. At the outset, it has to be stated that, the learned Counsel
8 1005.2004FA
appearing for the parties in the present appeals were ad idem on the
usual practice being followed by the Claims Tribunal of awarding the
interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the
claim petition till realization of the said amount. It is, however,
expected that, the Tribunal shall exercise the said discretion in fair,
reasonable and judicious manner.
7. I have carefully perused the Judgments and Awards
impugned in the present appeals. The learned Tribunal has nowhere
discussed as to why it was deviating from the usual and settled
practice of awarding interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition and why for it has awarded the conditional interest from the
date of award, if the amount is not paid within one month from the
date of award.
8. Similar issue was raised before the Himachal Pradesh High
Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Vs. Sudhir Rana and another
2009 ACJ 735 'whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding the
interest from the date of filing of the claim petition.' The learned
Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court answered the said
issue in the affirmative. Interpreting Section 171 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 the learned Judge observed thus :
9 1005.2004FA
"No doubt, in the aforesaid Section the
word may has been used. However, it is more than
apparent that an obligation is cast upon the Claims
Tribunal to consider the question of payment of
interest. There is no reason why a party which has not
unduly delayed the proceedings should be denied
interest. The cause of action arises when the accident
takes place and normally a party is entitled to interest
from the date of filing of the application. In case the
interest is not to be granted from the said date or the
interest is to be refused the Claims Tribunal must give
reasons for the same. In the present case, I find that
the proceedings had not been delayed by the claimant
and, therefore, I hold that he is entitled to interest. It
would be pertinent to mention that this Court in
Shushank v. Ram Karan, 2006 ACJ 779 (HP), has
already taken this view."
9. Similar such issue was before the another learned Single
Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in case of Raj Kumar
and another Vs. Kashmir Singh and others 2009 ACJ 745. In the
said matter, the petitioners were held entitled to a sum of
Rs.75,000/- towards compensation and the said amount was directed
to be deposited by respondents with the Tribunal within one month
from the date of passing of the award failing which the respondents
were made liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the
date of realization. In the aforesaid context, it was argued before the
High Court that, the Tribunal has erred in law by not awarding
interest from the date of filing of the petition. The High Court held
that, the Tribunal must have awarded interest from the date of filing
10 1005.2004FA
of the application. While allowing the appeal, following observations
were made by the High Court.
"It is evident that the grant of interest on the
awarded amount has been provided under section 171
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, though the word 'may'
and not 'shall' has been used in section 171 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, still the Tribunal while exercising its
jurisdiction, may award interest on the amount of
compensation. In fact, the Claims Tribunal awards
interest from the date of filing of the petition and if the
interest is not awarded, the Tribunal has to assign
specific reasons for not awarding the same. In the
present case, it is clear from the operative portion of the
award that no reasons have been recorded for not
awarding interest."
10. In case of Laxman Tikamdas Sippy Vs. Omprakash
Tulsidas Wadhwa 2009 ACJ 819 Bombay also a similar issue was
raised. In the said matter alike in the present case the Tribunal had
allowed the interest from the date of award, if it is not complied with
within one month. The said Tribunal had not assigned any reason
for not awarding the interest from the date of filing of the claim
application. There was no finding that, the claimants delayed the
proceeding. The question for consideration before the High Court
was, 'whether the claimants are entitled to the interest from the date
of filing of the claim application' and the High Court held the
applicants entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim application till realization.
11 1005.2004FA
11. In the case of Ayush Kumar Bilala V. Himmat Singh 2007
ACJ 462 Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court was required to deal
with the similar issue. In the said matter, the Tribunal had not
awarded any interest and no reasons were recorded by the Tribunal
for not awarding the interest. The Rajasthan High Court held that,
the Tribunal was not justified in not allowing the interest without
recording any reasons and consequently allowed the interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
payment.
12. In case of Sarvat Kochak V. National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
2006 ACJ 2101 Jammu & Kashmir, the Jammu & Kashmir High
Court held that,
"interest takes care of the period
between date of claim and date of payment. If
the tribunal finds that, claimant is not
entitled to the interest, it must record its
reasons, failure to give reasons shows that, the
tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction
vested in it properly."
13. In Shashikant Vs. Shantabai 2009 ACJ 463 Bombay, the
Tribunal had awarded the interest from the date of award and had
not given any reason for not awarding the interest from the date of
12 1005.2004FA
application. The issue for determination before the High Court was,
whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding the interest from the
date of claim application. The High court held that,
"Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, does not mandate awarding interest
from the date of application as the word used
in Section 171 is 'may' which means judicial
discretion is left to the Tribunal; Tribunal
should use its discretion judiciously and
award interest from the date of application
unless there are circumstances suggesting
protraction on the part of claimants."
14. In the matter of New India Assurance Company Ltd Vs.
Parvin Mohamed Gaus and Other 2005 ACJ 1956 Bombay, the
learned Single Judge of this Court has held that,
"The interest is ordinarily awarded by a
Court or Tribunal not by way of penalty, but under
section 34 of the C.P.C. Or principles analogous
thereto to neutralise the diminution in the value of
money caused by passage of time, which often is on
account of inability of the Courts to deliver instant or
quick justice."
15. Having regard to the issue raised in the present appeals, I
may usefully refer and rely upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court delivered way back in the year 1990 in Ramesh Chandra v.
13 1005.2004FA
Randhir Singh, 1990 ACJ 777 (SC). In the said matter neither the
claimant had claimed any interest in his claim petition nor it was
awarded by the Tribunal. The Apex Court was considering the
question, 'whether interest could be awarded even when the same
has not been claimed.' While answering the question in the
affirmative, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, addition of interest
to the compensation, by judicial discretion, is sequential in the yes of
law and no claim in that regard specifically need to be laid in the
claim petition. The Apex Court further held that, the amount of
interest is not dependent on any pleading in that regard and can
even be orally asked if the contingency arises. Interest was granted
at the rate of 6 per cent per annum by the Hon'ble Apex Court from
the date of application till realization.
16. 'What is the reasonable interest payable on the amount of
compensation awarded to claimant in a motor accident claim case'
was the issue involved before the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in the matter of Andhra Pradesh State Road Trans.
Corpn. and another Vs. B. Vijaya and others 2002 ACJ 1846. The
observations made in para 38 to 41 of the said Judgment are relevant
in context of the issue raised in the present appeals. I deem it
appropriate to reproduce the same herein below, which are thus :
14 1005.2004FA
38. "The term 'interest' is neither defined in the
Code nor in the Interest Act, 1978. According to West's
Legal Thesaurus, 'interest' may mean ' a charge that is
paid to borrow for use of money'. In the Concise
Oxford Dictionary, the term has been defined as
'money paid for the use of money lent'. According to
Chaber's Twentieth Century Dictionary, the word
'interest' literally means 'premium paid for the use of
money'. In Black's Law Dictionary, the expression
'interest' has been defined thus:
"Interest is the compensation allowed by law
or fixed by the parties for the use of forbearance or
detention of money."
39. Therefore, it is a charge made for the use of
money given by one person and taken by another.
When a person claims a certain amount to be due from
another and he is found entitled to it, he may be
awarded a further sum called 'interest' depending on
the circumstances of each case and the law or custom
or usage having the force of law. Interest is the
amount payable by the borrower to the lender for
forbearance or detention of the amount lent to him.
The rate of interest may either be by agreement or by
operation of statutory provisions where it specifically
provides for such payment.
40. There is difference between the amount
borrowed for specific purpose and the amount to be
granted in a motor accident claim case. The amount
in the former case is on account of contractual
obligation whereas in the latter case it is a variable
one and not based on any agreement but has
occasioned on account of the death of or injury caused
to any person resulting from an accident arising out of
the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles due to
negligence.
41. The natural conception of the word 'interest'
is the ordinary or normal profit, which the person
15 1005.2004FA
entitled to the principal money, might have made had
he used the said money, or his expected loss under
usual or ordinary circumstances due to the non-
payment of the same at the proper time."
17. In view of the law settled as above by judicial
pronouncements, I have no hesitation in holding that, the Tribunal
while passing the Judgments and Awards impugned in the present
appeals has erred in not awarding the interest from the date of filing
of the claim petition. As noted herein above, in none of the
Judgments, the Tribunal has assigned any reason for not awarding
the interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. It is not the
case that, the hearing of the claim petitions was prolonged at the
instance of the claimants therein. Further, it does not appear that
any inordinate delay had occurred in adjudication of the claim
petitions. In the circumstances, there was no reason for the Tribunal
to deprive the claimants from the legitimate benefit of interest on the
amount of compensation as envisaged under Section 171 of the Act.
The Tribunal has, thus, failed in properly exercising the discretion
vested in it. All these appeals therefore deserve to be allowed.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1. The appellants in the present appeals i.e. the claimants in
the respective claim petitions, are held entitled to the interest at the
16 1005.2004FA
rate of 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to
them in the respective claim petitions from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date on which the principle amount of
compensation was realised. Awards be modified accordingly. The
appeals stand allowed in the aforesaid terms.
( P.R. BORA, J. )
ggp
