Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sadhna vs Anuj on 3 October, 2023
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 3 rd OF OCTOBER, 2023
MISC. APPEAL No. 3099 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SADHNA W/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD GHURE,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
HOUSEWIFE, R/O WARD NO. 11 H.NO. 259
KHANGAR MOHALLA, TEHSIL TIMARNI,
DISTRICT- HARDA, (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SHIVAM S/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD GHURE,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: STUDENT
R/O WARD NO.11,H.NO.259,KHANGAR MOHALLA,
TEHSILTIMARNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. K U . SARIKA D/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD
GHURE, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O WARD
NO.11,H.NO. 259,KHANGAR MOHALLA, TEHSIL
TIMARNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. KU. ANJALI D/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD
GHURE, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O WARD
NO.11,H.NO. 259,KHANGAR MOHALLA, TEHSIL
TIMARNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. KU.MONA D/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD GHURE,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.11,H.NO.
259,KHANGAR MOHALLA, TEHSIL TIMARNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
6. SMT.PRIYANKA D/O LATE NARMADA PRASAD
GHURE W/O VARUN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O
VILLAGE BADVA,DISTRICT KHARGONE M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
7. SAVITRI W/O ONKAR PRASAD GHURE, AGED
ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.11,H.NO.
259,KHANGAR MOHALLA, TEHSIL TIMARNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
8. OMKAR PRASAD S/O FAUZDAR GHURE, AGED
ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O WARD NO.11,H.NO.
259,KHANGAR MOHALLA, TEHSIL TIMARNI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:53:51 PM
2
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. ANUJ S/O RAMADHAR PAWAR, AGED ABOUT 28
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: DRIVER R/O BABADIYA,
P.S. SIRALI, DISTRICT- HARDA, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. ANIL S/O RAMDAS DEVDA, AGED ABOUT 26
YE A R S , OCCUPATION: CASTE NAI, VEHICLE
OWNER R/O BABADIYA, P.S. SIRALI, DISTT.
HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. MANAGER, IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED RASULIYA,MAIN ROAD,
TEHSIL AND DISTRICT HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAKESH KUMAR JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
T h is appeal coming on for orders this day, t h e cou rt passed the
following:
ORDER
This appeal is filed being aggrieved of award dated 05/04/2022 passed by
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Harda in MACC No.99/2017 on a
single ground that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% from the
date of the award if the insurance company fails to deposit the awarded amount
within two months whereas award should have been payable from the date of
filing of the claim petition.
2. Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.3 makes
two fold submissions. Firstly, no Court fee has been paid on the amount of
enhancement sought as seeking interest from an earlier date will amount to
seeking enhancement of awarded amount. Secondly, reliance is placed on the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:53:51 PM
judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Bhayla
Wangariya Bhilala and another Vs. Abdul Kayum and others, 1999 (2)
MPLJ 54, wherein it is held that claimant cannot claim interest from a particular
date including the date of filing of claim petition. Tribunal is under no
obligation to award interest from the desired date.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the
record, Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that "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."
4. The purpose of making a statutory provision for award of interest is to
compensate for the inflation which takes place from the date of filing of the
claim petition till the date of actual payment. Discretion has been bestowed on
the Tribunal to order for payment of simple interest as such rate as it may
decide, but, that discretion has been curtailed by saying that it cannot be from a
date earlier than the date of making of the claim. Thus, Tribunal while making a
direction for payment of interest has to give reasons that why it is awarding
interest from a particular date. In the present case, Tribunal has not given any
reason that why it has awarded interest on failure of the insurance company to
not deposit the compensation within two months. Wherever discretion is
bestowed on an authority, then it is bound to give reasons. Since no reason is
given, therefore, the decision of Division Bench in the case of Bhayla
Wangariya Bhilala and another (supra) is distinguishable. This Court is of
the opinion that Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court has merely read the
statutory provision but has not taken taken into consideration a fact that when
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:53:51 PM
discretion is bestowed in an authority, then for exercise or non-exercise of
discretion that authority is required to assign reasons. Reason is the heart-beak
of exercise of discretion.
5. In Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi and others Vs. Union of India and
another [(2009) 7 SCC 372], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in absence
of statutory provision, Section 3 of Interest Act and Section 34 CPC are
invocable. It is held that claimant is entitled to interest, inasmuch as, the view of
the Courts is 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 utilised by the person in whose favour an order of recovery of
money was passed. Payment of interest is basically a compensation payable on
account of denial of the right to utilise the money due during the period in which
the same could have been made available to the claimants and which has been,
in fact, utilised by the person withholding the same. Accordingly, payment of
interest follows as a matter of course when a money decree is passed.
6. In case of Ramesh Chandra Vs. Randhir Singh and others [(1990) 3
SCC 723], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest can be awarded even
if no specific pleading or claim made in that regard, but precondition for award
of interest for allowing of claim for compensation.
7. In case of Devi Dayal Kansal and others Vs. Raj Roop and another
[(2000) 10 SCC 314], Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that interest on
enhanced compensation should be granted unless there is a cogent reason for
denying this benefit to the claimants. Thus, it is evident that interest is not a
bounty.
8. Since no reasons have been given, therefore, statute cannot left to read
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:53:51 PM
in such a manner so to defeat the purposes of a beneficial legislation. It is true
that claimant cannot claim interest as a matter of right but when a discretion is
given to the Tribunal, then it is required to exercise it judiciously and should
have given reasons for not awarding interest from the date of filing of claim
petition. Since no reasons have been given by learned Tribunal for not granting
interest from an earlier date, it is directed that interest will be payable from the
date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. In the interest of
justice and with a view to counter the rate of inflation, interest is to be from the
date of filing of claim petition unless it is brought on record that delay in trial
was on account of the acts of the claimant.
9. In above terms, this miscellaneous appeal is allowed and disposed of.
10. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back immediately.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
ts
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TULSA SINGH
Signing time: 10/5/2023
6:53:51 PM
