IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No 4797 of 2001 to FIRST APPEALNo 4801 of 2001 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD. Versus HEIRS OF DECD.MOHMADBHAI JAMALBHAI AGVAN -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. First Appeal No. 4797 of 2001 MR SUNIL B PARIKH for Petitioner No. 1 .......... for Respondent No. 1 NOTICE UNSERVED for Respondents No. 1/1-4,6 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 5 MR MAULIK J SHELAT for Respondent No. 7 2. Civil Application No. 11817 of 2001 MR SUNIL B PARIKH for Petitioner No. 1 .......... for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT and MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI Date of decision: 21/01/2002 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT) 1. These are appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, wherein the appellant challenges the judgment and awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Surendranagar, in a group of claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the said Act. 2. The short and only point raised in the present appeals by the appellant is that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petitions upto realisation. 3. We are conscious that the rates of interest have been consistently dropping over a period of time. We are also conscious of a number of decisions in the context of the appropriate rate of interest, both of the Supreme Court, as also of this Court. In our opinion, the flat rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 12% per annum is certainly excessive, at least to some extent. There cannot be any controversy in this regard. 4. In the light of the various decisions of this Court, as also of this very Bench, we are of the opinion that the impugned awards require to be modified, only in respect of the rate of interest awarded, by holding and directing that the claimants shall be entitled to the compensation determined by the Tribunal under the impugned awards together with proportionate costs and interest (on the compensation awarded) at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition upto 31st December, 1999 and the rate of 9% per annum thereafter upto deposit or realisation. 5. The impugned awards are modified only to the aforesaid extent, and the rest of the awards are hereby confirmed. These appeals are, therefore, partly allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. 6. Decree accordingly. 7. We are conscious that we are deciding these appeals in absence of the respondents (original claimants). However, we have done so only because the point involved in these appeals is very narrow, and also because it is a question of law on which various decisions of this Court, as also of the very Bench, completely cover the situation. However, we reserve liberty to the respnodents (original claimants) to apply in case of difficulty, upto 28th February, 2002. 9. Direct service is permitted. **** (swamy)