Delhi High Court
Up State Road Transport ... vs Seena @Seema & Ors. on 7 March, 2013
Author: Suresh Kait
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 7th March, 2013
+ MAC.APP. 861/2011
UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Garima Prashad, Advocate.
Versus
SEENA @SEEMA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.M.M.Singh, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant appeal, the appellant/ Corporation has assailed the
judgment dated 19.05.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby the
compensation award has been granted in favour of the respondents/claimants
and against the appellant/Corporation.
2. Ms.Garima Prashad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant/Corporation submits that the principal amount has already been
released in favour of the respondents/claimants in pursuance of order dated
11.04.2012 passed by this Court. The present appeal challenges only the
interest part.
3. Mr. M.M. Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents/claimants does not rebut the contention made by counsel for the
appellant/Corporation.
4. The Learned Tribunal, while granting the compensation award
directed the appellant to pay interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the
institution of the petition i.e. 06.10.2009 till its realisation besides paying a
sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as cost/litigation expenses
including lawyer's fees.
5. I note, on reaching to the higher rate of interest i.e. @ 18 % per
annum than the normal rate of interest, the learned Tribunal has recorded as
under: -
" Now question arises what rate of interest should be
imposed upon the compensation amount. Counsel for
petitioners argued that keeping in view the conduct of the
respondents during pendency of the case, higher rate of
interest should be imposed.
Firstly the defences taken by respondents in their written
statement are found vague, totally contradictory to each other
as well as false and incorrect as discussed above while
deciding issue no. 1. Even the false preliminary objection of
locus standi of the petitioners to file the petition was taken
unnecessarily. Secondly respondent no. 2 as per order of the
court dated 4-8-2010 was directed to pay interim compensation
which was required to be deposited within one month as per
law but that order was not complied with for several months
and at last court was compelled to issue attachment orders of
the bus of the respondent no. 2 besides imposing penalty of
Rs.5,000/- as per one judgment of Delhi High Court. Thereafter
only part payment was deposited and even the cheque issued in
the name of the petitioner no. 1 was not correct so again
attachment order of bus of the respondent no. 2 was issued.
Thirdly from the conduct of the officials and counsel of the
respondent no. 2 in taking the matter very casually and
conducting the proceedings in highly negligent manner does
not deserve any leniency in their favour. Statement of PW-1 was
recorded on 23-9-2010 and on that day no one appeared to
cross examine her so the same was treated as nil. Thereafter at
the request of proxy counsel, permission was granted to cross
examine her lateron. The cross examination of PW-1 was
conducted by proxy counsel and even main counsel for
respondents did not find time to come to the court to participate
in the proceedings. On the next date when PW-2 was examined,
again no one appeared from side of respondents to cross
examine him. The evidence of respondents was also closed by
order. Record shows that representative of respondent no. 2 or
its main counsel hardly appeared in the court. Respondent no. 2
is a govt. agency and must have a big number of officials and
panel advocates but it remained unrepresented on number of
occasions and neither officials nor its counsel took care to
appear in the court regularly. Lastly counsel for respondents
even did not appear to argue on the matter but without any
permission placed on record written submissions consisting of
three paragraphs only. First two paragraphs only mention
about the pleadings and the third paragraph consisting of 10
lines does not much help and assist the court to reach at just
conclusion. The above conduct of the respondents, taking of
false defences in their written statement and having failed to
discharge their obligation, chosen to contest the matter despite
having knowledge that they had virtually no defence, failed to
exercise their powers to get the matter settled at the first
instance and unnecessarily causing wastage of the court time
besides causing unnecessary harassment to the petitioners, I
deem it proper to grant interest at the higher rate then normal
rate of interest. Hence after relying upon the decision of
Supreme Court given in Ghaziabad Development Authority vs.
Balbir Singh II (2004) CPJ 12 respondent no. 2 is directed to
pay interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the award amount from
the date of institution of the petition i.e. 6-10-2009 till
realization besides paying sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost/litigation
expenses including lawyer's fees. Respondent no. 2 is at liberty
to get this amount recovered from the salary of the defaulting
and careless officials. This issue is decided accordingly in
favour of petitioners and against the respondents."
6. In view of the above, if the inconvenience caused and public time
wasted by the appellant/Corporation during the trial is taken into
consideration, then I am of the view that interest @ 18% per annum granted
by the learned Tribunal is just and proper.
7. However, since learned counsel for the parties, after some arguments,
have agreed to the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the institution
of the petition till its realisation, therefore, the impugned award dated
19.05.2011 is modified to the extent that the appellant/Corporation shall pay
interest @ 12% per annum on the awarded amount from the date of
institution of the petition i.e. 06.10.2009 till its realisation.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation submits that the entire
interest @ 18% per annum has already been deposited with the learned
Tribunal, which is also not rebutted by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents/claimants.
9. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal is directed to release the interest @
12% per annum in favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the
impugned award dated 19.05.2011 and the remaining/excessive amount
towards interest shall be released in favour of the appellant/Corporation.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/Corporation also requests to waive
the cost/litigation expenses including lawyer's fees of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand only) imposed by the learned Tribunal. However, I am not
inclined to interfere with the same.
11. In view of the above, the appeal stands disposed of.
12. Resultantly, the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- shall be released in
favour of the appellant/Corporation.
13. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the
parties.
SURESH KAIT, J.
MARCH 07, 2013
Sb/RS
