Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 351 (HP)

Raj Kumar v. Kashmir Singh

2008-07-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2008
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. A challenge has been laid by way of present F.A.O. to the award made by the MACT, Bilaspur on 24.2.2004 in MAC Petition No. 32 of 1999. 2. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this F.A.O. are that the present appellants had preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation before the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur. It was in year 1998 when Shri Vikas Kumar son of Shri Raj Kumar appellant, who was a student of Government School met with an accident. Shri Vikas Kumar received injuries and he succumbed to his injuries. The respondent had resisted the claim petition. The learned MACT had framed the following issues: 1. Whether the deceased Shri Vikas Kumar had died due to the rash and negligent driving of Shri Kuldeep Singh driver of truck No. as alleged? OPE 2. If issue No. 1 supra is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from which of the respondent?... OPP. 3. Whether the truck driver did not have valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, as alleged? If so, its effect?... OPR-3. 4. Relief. 3.The learned MACT has given the following findings on the issues framed: Issue No. 1: Yes. Issue No. 2: The petitioners awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 75,000/- against respondents No. 1 to 3. Issue No. 3: No. Issue No. 4 : The petitioners awarded just and reasonable compensation of Rs. 75,000/- against respondents No. 1 to 3 as per operative part of the award. 4. The petitioners were held entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation against the respondents No. 1 to 3. The respondent No. 3 was directed to deposit the sum of Rs. 75,000/- with the Tribunal within one month from the date of passing of the award, i.e. 24.2.2004, failing which it was liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of realization. 5. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate has strenuously argued that the learned MACT has erred in law by not awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 18.3.1999. 6. Mr. Rarnakant Sharma, Mr. Bimal Gupta and Mr. J.L. Kashyap learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the award dated 24.2.2004, 7. 5. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate has strenuously argued that the learned MACT has erred in law by not awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 18.3.1999. 6. Mr. Rarnakant Sharma, Mr. Bimal Gupta and Mr. J.L. Kashyap learned Counsel for the respondents have supported the award dated 24.2.2004, 7. I have heard the parties and have perused the record carefully. 8. The accident has taken place on 17.6.1998. A precious life was lost due to accident. The learned MACT has recorded the finding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent act of respondent No. 2. The learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation but as far as the payment of interest amount is concerned, the same was made conditional. The amount was to be paid by respondent No. 3 only if the awarded amount of Rs. 75,000/- was not deposited within one month failing which it was liable to pay simple interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum till its realization from 24.2.2004. The learned MACT has erred in law by not awarding interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 18.3.1999. It will be apt at this stage to take a note of Section 171of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads thus: 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. 9. 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 Tribunals 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 fact, the Claims Tribunals 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. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are held entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition on the entire amount awarded i.e. Rs. 75,000 w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition. 11. The respondents are directed to deposit this amount within a period of four weeks from today. 12. No costs.