IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. F.A.O.(MVA) No.: 158 of 2004. Decided on: 06.08.2008. Sukhmati and Others … … Appellants. Versus Ram Singh & Others. … … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Appellants: Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: None. For Respondent No.2: Dr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): The present F.A.O. has been preferred against the award dated 30th August, 2003 passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Bilaspur in M.A.C. Case No.70 of 2001. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that in the month of March, 2001. Shri Roop Lal son of Shri Gulaba Ram died in a motor accident. The dependents of Shri Roop Lal preferred a claim petition before the learned M.A.C.T., Bilaspur. The learned MACT, Bilaspur vide award dated 30th August, 2003 awarded a compensation of Rs.2,88,000/- to the claimants. This F.A.O. has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma had vehemently argued that the learned M.A.C.T., Bilaspur has erred in law while calculating the income of deceased and proper multiplier has not been applied. According to Mr. Neel Kamal Sharma, the income of the deceased was Rs.6000/- per month and the multiplier of 11 should have been applied. On the other hand, Dr. Lalit Sharma has supported the award dated 30.8.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the award passed by the learned M.A.C.T., Bilaspur, dated 30.8.2003. The finding recorded by the learned M.A.C.T. while calculating the income of deceased Shri Roop Lal is in accordance with law. The multiplier of 8 at the age of 58 years is also in conformity with the latest law. However, it is clear from the award dated 30th August, 2003 that no interest has been paid. The interest is to be paid under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Though the impression “may” has been used in Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, however, the Presiding Judge has to assign reasons why the interest is not payable. In the present case no reasons have been assigned by the learned M.A.C.T., Bilaspur for non-payment of interest to the claimants. It is held that the claimants are entitled to the interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition. Accordingly, in view of the above observations, the appeal is partly allowed. The award is modified only to the extent that the claimants shall be paid interest at the rate of 9% per annum by the respondent No.2 from the date of the petition. The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the enhanced amount after calculating the interest within six weeks from today. No other point was urged by either of the parties. No costs. August 6, 2008. (Rajiv Sharma), (sck) Judge. - 3 -