Jharkhand High Court
Chumanu Oraon vs Dhaneshwar Pandey on 7 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 139 of 2016
-----
1. Chumanu Oraon
2. Subodh Oraon
3. Mukesh Oraon
4. Dasami Orain
5. Maharani Orain
6. Bijay Oraon Appellants
Versus
1. Dhaneshwar Pandey
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Lohardaga..
.....Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
-----
For the appellants: Mr. Dr. Hasnain Waris, Advocate.
For the Insurance Co.: Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.
For the Owner: Mr. Bijay Kr. Sinha, Advocate.
----
11/07.06.2022: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The appellants have raised very limited question in this appeal by
challenging the part of the judgment and award dated 3.12.2015 passed by the
District Judge-II-cum-P.O., MACT, Lohardaga in Compensation Claim Case No.
68/2010.
3. The only point raised by the appellants in this appeal is that the
Tribunal has not awarded interest in terms of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Counsel for the appellants submits that non-awarding of interest on
the compensation amount means refusing the claim of the interest and for that
the Tribunal is duty bound to assign a reason. In the instant case, no reason has
been assigned for refusing grant of interest. He further submits that by nature a
claim application is a money claim and the appellants/claimants are entitled to
receive compensation, thus as per him, in terms of Section 171 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, interest should have been awarded to the claimants. He also
submits that the Tribunal has only granted penal interest @ 6% per annum, if the
amount of compensation is not paid within one month from the date of award. As
per him this is not the interest, which has to be granted under Section 171 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
4. Mr. Alok Lal, counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the
instant claim case was filed in the year 2010 but only on 9.6.2011, deficit court
fees was deposited and only on that date, the claim application was admitted and
thus there is delay and laches on the part of the appellants in pursuing the case.
5. The counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicles
adopts the arguments made by Mr. Alok Lal, counsel for the Insurance Company.
6. Since the dispute, raised in this appeal, lies in a very narrow
compass, which is in respect of grant of interest, I am not entering into other
aspects of the claim case.
7. From the award, I find that the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.5,01,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal had only granted interest @6% p.a
that too by way of penalty. The Tribunal ordered that if the amount of
compensation i.e. Rs.5,01,000/- is not paid within one month from the date of
award then the Insurance Company will pay interest @ 6% from the date of
admission of this claim case till the realization of the said amount.
8. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of
interest when the claim case is allowed. The provision reads as under:-
"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.
This provision of law gives power to the Court/Tribunal to grant interest on
the compensation amount.
9. In the case reported in the case of Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and
Others Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2009) 7 SCC 372, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 26 and 27 of the judgment has held as
follows:-
"26. The Courts are consistent in their view that normally
when a money decree is passed, it is most essential that
interest be granted for the period during which the money
was due, but could not be utilized by the person in whose
favour an order of recovery of money was passed.
27. As has been frequently explained by this Court and
various High Courts, interest is essentially a
compensation payable on account of denial of the right to
utilize the money due, which has been, in fact, utilized by
the person withholding the same, Accordingly, payment of
interest follows as a matter of course when a money
decree is passed."
Though the aforesaid case was in relation to the Railway Claims Tribunal
Act, 1987, yet the same principle can be followed in this case. This case also
relates to claim of money where ultimately the claim has been allowed in favour
of the claimants. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are entitled
for interest in terms of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on the
amount, which has already been awarded.
10. In this case, it is clear that the Tribunal has not granted interest to
the claimants on the awarded amount in terms of Section 171 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, rather the Tribunal has granted only the penal interest , if the
amount of compensation is not paid within a particular period. This grant of
interest cannot be said to be awarded in terms of Section 171 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
11. Now the question is from which date, the claimants are entitled to
receive the said interest and at what rate. From the ordersheet of the Tribunal, I
find that though the claim application was filed in the year 2010, but the deficit
court fees was deposited on 9.6.2011 and the case was admitted on 9.6.2011.
Thus the claimants are entitled to receive interest from 9.6.2011 i.e. from the
date of admission and not from the date of filing of the claim application. The
Tribunal has awarded penal interest @ 6% per annum, thus, I find that the rate of
interest @ 6% per annum is sufficient in the instant case.
12. Thus, I direct the Insurance Company to pay interest on the amount
of compensation so assessed @6% per annum from the date of admission of the
claim application i.e. from 9.6.2011 till the date, the amount of compensation is
paid/or has been paid to the claimants. The amount of interest should be
calculated by the Insurance Company and be paid to the claimants within a
period of ten weeks. If the Insurance Company has already paid any interest,
then the balance amount should be paid to the claimants.
13. The right of recovery, which has been granted in last three lines of
paragraph 6 of the impugned award is not interfered with.
14. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of.
Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)
