JUDGMENT
[ENTITY] and [ENTITY], JJ.
1. This first appeal from order under [SECTION] of the [ACT] is directed against the judgment and award dated 28.8.2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lucknow, allowing the claim petition and directing the appellant, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay a sum of Rs. 3,33,300 as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition.
2. It is undisputed that vehicle [CASE NUMBER] which is owned by Lt. Colonel [ENTITY], respondent No. 5 was being driven by Shri [ENTITY] on 4.12.2001 and while it was on way, from Lucknow to Shrawasti, tyre of the rear wheel of the vehicle accidentally burst off, with the result, the vehicle was disbalanced and upturned towards left. With the result, Shri [ENTITY], driver as well as the other persons who were in the said vehicle, sustained injuries. Shri [ENTITY], who was seriously injured, was taken to the hospital, where his treatment continued for five days, but he died on 8.12.2001.
3. Claimants respondents 1 to 4 filed a claim petition for compensation which was contested by the appellant denying its liability for payment of compensation.
4. Learned Tribunal framed relevant issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. On an appraisal of the entire evidence, the Tribunal held that at the relevant time deceased, [ENTITY] was aged about 25 years. He was having monthly income of Rs. 2,200. He was having a driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant. Applying the multiplier of 18, the amount of compensation was determined to a sum of Rs. 3,33,000 with the interest pendente lite and future which was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition.
5. The appellant has challenged the said award through this appeal.
6. Heard Shri [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri [ENTITY], learned Counsel for the claimants respondents.
7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the accident occurred due to bursting of the tyre and it was on account of ill-maintenance or improper maintenance of the vehicle, so the Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. He referred to the evidence of [ENTITY] P.W. 2, who stated in the cross-examination that at the time of the accident, he was in the vehicle in question. He was taken by Shri [ENTITY]. He was a conductor on some other vehicle and not of the vehicle in question. He further stated that he had seen that the air was filled in all the four wheels of the vehicles of which the tyres were weak. It is, therefore, urged that this evidence of claimant itself proves that the tyres were not in proper order and the accident was the result of the use of weak and rotten tyres. On behalf of the respondents, the learned Counsel referred to the evidence of Lt. Colonel [ENTITY] D.W. 1 (owner of the vehicle), who deposed that all the tyres of the vehicle were quite new and the vehicle had run for 25,000 kilometers only and there was no technical defect. He used to check the vehicle off and on and the vehicle was properly maintained and there was no defect therein on the date of accident. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant company to show that the tyres were actually weak or the maintenance of the vehicle was poor especially when the vehicle itself had run 25,000 kilometers only and so there was no question of tyres being weak or unusable. Therefore, merely on the basis of the statement of Shri [ENTITY] P.W. 2, it would not be proper to hold that the vehicle was not properly maintained, whereas there is evidence of the vehicle owner to the contrary. Moreover, Shri [ENTITY] P.W. 2 is rustic person having no special knowledge of the vehicle and tyres. One stray sentence in his cross-examination, which he seems to have inadvertently made is not sufficient to uphold the contention of the appellant in view of the overwhelming evidence in support of the case of vehicle owner that the vehicle was properly maintained.
8. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding the interest at the rate of 9% per annum as the bank rate on deposits has lowered down to 6% only. In support of this argument the learned Counsel has referred to the case of [ENTITY] v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 2001 (1) AWC 619 (SC) : 2001 (1) TAC 649 (SC). It was held in this case that earlier 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India, the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest @ 9% on fixed deposit for one year. We, therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed here and before shall bear interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellant. In another case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the case of [ENTITY] awarded the interest of 9% in place of 12%, The learned Counsel has also relied on the case of [PRECEDENT], the Hon'ble Apex Court held that award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time.
9. The learned Counsel has, therefore, submitted that at present, the bank rate is 6% only, therefore, the amount of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal was higher and excessive.
10. On a consideration of said argument, we find force in this submission. At present, the bank rate is around 6% only per annum on the fixed deposits. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the prevailing bank rate at present we find that the rate of interest should be 6% only and not 9%. Award, needs to be modified accordingly.
11. No other point was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant.
12. In the result, appeal partly succeeds.
13. The appeal is partly allowed. The claimants respondents shall be entitled for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest @ 6% per annum. The award is modified accordingly.