IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 199 of 2009 1. Smt. Vimla, W/o Late Vikram Singh R/o Mazari Rashem, Doiwala District Dehradun. 2. Master Ravinder, S/o Late Vikram Singh 3. Master Sandeep, S/o Late Vikram Singh Both through their natural guardian/ Mother, R/o Village and Post Bagoli Tehsil Karnprayag, Chamoli Presently R/o Mazari Rashem Doiwala, District Dehradun. ……Appellants Versus 1. Narendra Singh Sah S/o Sri Chander Singh Sah R/o Village Chonda Post Tharali District Chamoli. 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Office Ashley Hall Dehradun, through its Divisional Manager. .……….Respondents. Shri H.M. Bhatia, Advocate, for the appellants. Shri V.K. Kohli, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Shri T.C. Pandey, counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is directed against the award dated 17.03.2009, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Dehradun, in MAC case No. 82 of 2006, whereby said tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,21,000/- as compensation to be paid to the claimants by respondent No. 2. This appeal has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that on 13.02.2006, at about 1:00 p.m., Vikram Singh (deceased) was traveling in a bus, registration No. U.P.-07-3469, on his way from Karnprayag to Gwaldam. When the bus reached near Nalgaon, an accident took place in which Vikram Singh suffered injuries and died. He was a Chowkidar in Gas Godown, Agasore, and was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. It is alleged that he was aged 35 years at the time of his death. The claimant/appellant No. 1, is widow of the deceased and claimants/appellants No. 2 and 3, are sons of the deceased, who moved an application under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dehradun, seeking compensation amounting Rs. 4,41,500/-. 4. Respondent No. 1, owner of the vehicle did not contest the case, before the Tribunal. However, respondent No. 2 – New India Assurance Company with whom the bus registration No. U.P.-07-3469 was insured, contested the petition before the Tribunal and filed its written statement. It is pleaded by respondent No. 2 that the driver of the bus was not in possession of the valid driving license at the time of accident. It is further pleaded that the owner of the vehicle has violated 3 the terms and conditions of the policy under which the bus was insured with the answering respondent. It is also pleaded that there were more passengers in the bus than the prescribed capacity. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues:- 1. Whether on 13.02.2006, at about 1:00 p.m., near Nalgaon, the bus registration No. UP 07 3469, was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, and said bus met with an accident in which Vikram Singh suffered injuries and died? 2. Whether the driver of the bus was not in possession of the valid driving licence? 3. Whether the bus was not insured and was the bus being plied without valid papers? 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to any amount of compensation. If so, what amount and from whom? 5. Whether the owner/driver of the vehicle had violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as pleaded in para-26 of the written statement of respondent No. 2? 6. After recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants. As to the amount of compensation, the tribunal found that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. 4 After deducting 1/3rd of the amount, which the deceased would have spent on himself, by applying multiplier of 13, the tribunal calculated that the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimants at Rs. 2000 X 12 X 13= Rs. 3,12,000/-. After adding Rs. 2,000/- towards the funeral charges, Rs. 2000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 5,000/- towards consortium, total amounting Rs. 3,21,000/- was awarded as compensation by the Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 17.03.2009, directing the respondent No. 2 to pay the same within a period of one month, failing which respondent No. 2 was directed to pay 6% interest per annum on the amount, awarded as compensation. It further directed that Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the awarded sum shall be deposited in Fixed Deposit for three years in the name of Smt. Vimla Devi (claimant/appellant No. 1) and Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of claimant/appellant No. 2 and Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of claimant/appellant No. 3 till they attain the age of majority. Aggrieved by said order, this appeal has been filed by the claimants. 7. Shri H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has committed grave error of law in directing that out of Rs. 3,21,000/- an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- be deposited in the Fixed Deposit. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that if almost entire amount is deposited, then the object of the 5 legislature would get defeated, as nothing would be made available to the claimants at the time of dire need when a bread earner in their family has died. I agree with the submission, made by the learned counsel for the appellants. The object of the law is to provide adequate financial assistance to the bereaved family. In the present case, since the widow is living with two minor sons of the deceased, at least Rs. 2,00,000/- out of Rs. 3,21,000/- should have been made available to the family for the daily expenditure. 8. Next argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that under Section 171 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal should have awarded interest on the amount of compensation from the date of application, made before the Tribunal. I have gone through provisions, contained in Section 171 of the Act. It provides discretion to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to direct to pay the interest on the compensation awarded, from the date not earlier to the date of application. Needless to say that the discretion is to be exercised by the Tribunal judiciously. It is not a case where the claim petition has been decided in the same year when the application is moved. Claim petition appears to have been filed in the year 2006 and the same is decided in the year 2009. In the circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the claimants should not have been denied 6% interest on the 6 amount of compensation from the date of application, moved under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 till the date of its decision. On other points this Court does not find any error of law, committed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. 9. For the reasons, as discussed above, this appeal is disposed of with the direction that the claimants/appellants shall be paid 6% interest on the amount of compensation, which shall be paid by respondent No. 2 –National India Assurance Company, with whom the ill-fated bus was insured, from the date of application moved under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal, and not from 30 days of the decision of the claim petition, as directed by the Tribunal. It is further directed that only an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be deposited in the Fixed Deposit in favour of the claimant/appellant No. 2- Ravinder and Rs. 50,000/- in favour of claimant/appellant No. 3- Sandeep in the nationalized bank, which shall be paid to them on attaining age of majority. Rest of the entire amount of Rs. 2,21,000/- shall be paid to the claimants, which can be received by claimant/appellant No. 1-Vimla Devi, widow of the deceased with whom the minor children are living. With the above modification, this appeal stands disposed of. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:10.11.2009 Sweta 7 8 9 10 11 12