Delhi High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Smt. Sunita Sethi & Ors. on 7 December, 2021
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 07.12.2021
+ MAC.APP. 52/2021
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. ..... Appellant
versus
SMT. SUNITA SETHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate (through VC)
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Mahajan, Advocate (through VC)
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 43809/2021 (restoration)
1. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, application is allowed.
Appeal is restored to its original number.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.12.2021
Signing Date:08.12.2021 11:34:04 23:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
MAC.APP. 52/2021
3. Appellant has impugned the award dated 12.12.2019 as modified by
order dated 10.01.2020 whereby the claim petition filed by respondent no.
1, has been allowed and compensation awarded.
4. By detailed order dated 29.01.2021 this Court had rejected the
challenge to the award on merits and had issued notice limited to the
question of rate of interest on the awarded amount.
5. The tribunal had awarded rate of interest @ 9% per annum. The
contention of learned counsel for the appellant at the time of issuance of the
notice was that interest should be calculated @ 6% per annum.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present prevailing
rate of interest on fixed deposit is about 6%, accordingly interest should
have been awarded at 6% per annum.
7. I am unable to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the
appellant in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dharam Pal &
Ors. Vs. UP State Road Transport Corporation 2008 (12) SCC 208 wherein
the Supreme Court referring to an earlier decision of Kaushnuma Begum &
Ors. Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2001 (2) SCC page 9 held that
where earlier 12% rate of interest was found to be reasonable and on
account of change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India
which has allowed the interest rate granted by the nationalized bank at 9%
was found to be reasonable.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.12.2021
Signing Date:08.12.2021 11:34:04 23:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
8. The Supreme Court thereafter held that the compensation awarded
should carry a rate of interest prevailing on the date of the passing of the
award.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant admits that there is no material on
record to show that the rate of interest prevailing on the date of the award
i.e. 12.12.2019 was not 9% per annum.
10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Claimants that Courts,
prior to the onset of the pandemic because of Covid-19, were awarding
interest @ 9% per annum.
11. Accordingly, on that count also, I find no infirmity in the impugned
award and accordingly find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed.
12. Order dated 29.01.2021 directing the tribunal to release the
compensation amount with interest calculated @ 6% is modified. The
awarded amount be released as per the scheme of disbursal provided in the
award dated 12.12.2019 as modified by order dated 10.01.2021.
13. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
DECEMBER 7, 2021
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:07.12.2021
Signing Date:08.12.2021 11:34:04 23:26
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
