Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 216 (JK)

Ab. Majid v. State Of J&K

2014-05-20

ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY

body2014
1. Appellants have filed this Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.05.2001 passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban, in Claim petition no. 6/Chalan and order dated 15.02.2006 passed in File no. 37/Misc, i.e., the Review Petition, filed by the appellants, insofar as the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ramban, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) has omitted to award any interest. 2. The son of the appellants, who had been a Doctor and posted as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre Ramsoo in District Ramban, while on duty, traveling in a Bullet Proof Gypsy of Police Department, met with a fatal accident and died. The appellants filed a Claim Petition for award of compensation. The Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 15.05.2001 allowed the Claim Petition filed by the appellants and awarded an amount of 9,24,528.00 together with funeral expenses of Rs. 2000.00 in favour of the appellants. However, the Tribunal did not make any order for award of interest. 3. The appellants on 27.09.2001 filed an application before the Tribunal, purporting it to be review under Section 152 CPC, stating therein that they had received the judgment on 26.09.2001 and on perusal thereof it was found that "inadvertently there is no mention of the interest on the award amount which is statutory liability under S. 171 of the MV Act". In the said application, the appellants prayed that "by invoking inherent power the slip/omission inadvertently may kindly be corrected and the poor applicant be allowed the interest available to them u/s 171 of the M. V. Act". 4. The aforesaid application was resisted by the respondents, inter alia, on the grounds that the application was time barred and that the applicants had not filed any application for condonation of delay or an affidavit in support thereof. 5. The aforesaid application, however, was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 15.02.2006. Hence the present appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and considered the matter. 7. Perusal of the original record received from the Tribunal reveals that during the pendency of the aforesaid application, the Director General of Police, J&K, vide letter no. Pros/CP4/J/00/7978 dated 23.12.2002, addressed to the Chief Prosecuting Officer, Ramban, released an amount of Rs. 9,26.528.00 representing the award amount through Bank Draft no. 2738322 dated 18.12.2002 which was deposited in the Tribunal on 08.01.2003. Pros/CP4/J/00/7978 dated 23.12.2002, addressed to the Chief Prosecuting Officer, Ramban, released an amount of Rs. 9,26.528.00 representing the award amount through Bank Draft no. 2738322 dated 18.12.2002 which was deposited in the Tribunal on 08.01.2003. In this manner, the award made by the Tribunal stood satisfied to its full vide aforesaid Bank Draft dated 18.12.2002. 8. The present appeal was filed alongwith an application seeking condonation of 1725 days' delay. The application for condonation was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.12.2007. Perusal of the order passed on the condonation petition reveals that the learned counsel for the appellants had conceded that the review petition before the Tribunal had been filed under a mistaken belief and wrong advice. However, as mentioned above, the condonation petition was allowed on 06.12.2007. From 06.12.2007, this appeal has seen the light of the day for the first time on 13.05.2014 when it was listed for hearing. Neither the Registry has bothered to list it, nor have the appellants or their counsel taken any steps to get it listed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited the attention of this Court to Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and submitted that the wording of the Section makes it incumbent upon the Tribunal to award interest when the claim petition for compensation made under the Act is allowed. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand vehemently argued that the Section uses the word `may', meaning thereby that the law confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award or not to award interest, and that, once the Tribunal has exercised the discretion, no exception can be taken to it. He further submitted that the appellants in their application had not claimed any interest. 10. The law on award of interest in claim petitions under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 stands settled by the Supreme Court in its various judgments. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 . In paragraph 18 of the judgment therein, the following has been laid down: "Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of law. Director General, Geological Survey of India, (2003) 3 SCC 148 . In paragraph 18 of the judgment therein, the following has been laid down: "Interest can be granted even if a claimant does not specifically plead for the same as it is consequential in the eye of law. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him. No principle could be deduced nor can any rate of interest be fixed to have a general application in a motor accident claim case having regard to the nature of provision under Section 171 giving discretion to the Tribunal in such matter. In other matters, awarding of interest depends upon the statutory provisions, mercantile usage and doctrine of equity. Neither Section 34 CPC nor Section 4-A(3) of the "Workmen's Compensation Act are applicable in the matter of fixing rate of interest in a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. The courts have awarded the interest at different rates depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, in my opinion, there cannot be any hard-and-fast rule in awarding interest and the award of interest is solely on the discretion of the Tribunal or the High Court, as indicated above." 11. In the instant case, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has not adverted to the point of grant or otherwise of interest on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. It is not a case where the award for compensation has not been made at all. Seemingly, the Presiding Officers had been oblivious of the provision of law. Having allowed the claim petition and made an order for award of compensation to the appellants, the Presiding Officer, in terms of the provision of Section 171 of the Act, ought to have adverted to this important aspect of the matter. He having failed to do so despite having awarded compensation, the appellants are held to be entitled to claim interest. 12. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to what should be the rate of interest awarded in the instant case. The Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of its judgment in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. He having failed to do so despite having awarded compensation, the appellants are held to be entitled to claim interest. 12. Now, the question that arises for consideration is as to what should be the rate of interest awarded in the instant case. The Supreme Court in paragraph 6 of its judgment in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India (supra) has held that the question as to what should be the rate of interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time. In the said case, the Apex Court held the appellants therein entitled to interest at the rate 9% per annum. In Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 9 , referred to in Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director General, Geological Survey of India (supra), the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 has held as under: "Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV Act empowers the Tribunal to 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 may be specified in this behalf'. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of interest. With a change in economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India, the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants." 13. It may be observed here that the aforesaid decision in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra) was rendered by the Supreme Court on 08.07.2002 when, as noted therein, the rate of interest granted by the nationalized banks was 9% The award in the instant case was made almost around the same period, viz. on 15.05.2001. Even presently also, as per the statement made at the Bar, the rate of interest granted by the nationalized banks is around 8.5% per annum. In that view of the matter. on 15.05.2001. Even presently also, as per the statement made at the Bar, the rate of interest granted by the nationalized banks is around 8.5% per annum. In that view of the matter. I think, it would be just and appropriate to grant and award interest to the appellants at the rate of 9%, i.e., the rate of interest as it was prevalent around the time when the award in the instant case was made. Further, since the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal was deposited before the Tribunal on 08.01.2003, the appellants would be entitled to the interest only upto the date the respondents had discharged their liability as per the award made by the Tribunal. 14. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The appellants are held entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal viz., Rs. 9,24,528.00, with effect from the date of making of the claim petition, viz., 27.09.2001, upto the date the amount was deposited with the Tribunal by the respondents, viz., 08.01.2003, as reflected from perusal of the original record of the Tribunal. The amount on account of interest so awarded shall be payable by the respondents to the appellants within a period of six months, failing which the respondents shall be liable to pay a further interest at the same rate on the total amount of interest from 27.09.2001 to 08.01.2003 with effect from the day following the expiry of six months until the date it is paid in full. 15. The amount of interest on the amount of compensation at the rate as awarded hereinabove shall be calculated by the Tribunal and communicated to the Director General of Police, J&K, Srinagar, through the Chief Public Prosecutor concerned. The period of six months granted above for its payment to the appellants, shall run from the date of such Communication to the Director General through the Chief Public Prosecutor. 16. Registry to forthwith send down the original records of the Tribunal alongwith a copy of this judgment.