1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- (1) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 674 of 1996 SMT KRISHNA KUMARI & ORS V/S ALLAH DEEN & ORS (2) CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 525 of 1996 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD V/S SMT KRISHNA KUMARI & ORS Mr. BHARAT SHRIMALI for Mr. SHAMBHOO SINGH, for the appellant Mr. RK MEHTA, for the respondent Date of Order : 21.4.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. JUDGMENT -------- These are two cross-appeals arise out of the same award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur dated 25.5.96 passed in MACT No.214/95 awarding a sum of Rs.2,06,500/- by way of compensation for death of one Ashok Kumar. Appeal No.525 is by the insurer, while the appeal No.674 is by the claimant, and therefore, both the appeals are being decided by this common order. Taking the appeal No.525 first, from perusal of the appeal, it transpires that the whole thrust of the 2 grounds is only on quantum. May be that in para 2 of the appeal a calculation mistake of Rs.14,400/- has been pointed out, but then nonetheless, it remains a contention on quantum, which is not open to be raised in appeal by the insurer, therefore, the appeal of the insurer being appeal No.525/96 is dismissed. Then so far as the appeal of the claimant is concerned, the learned Tribunal has found that the claimants had pleaded in the claim petition the income of the deceased to be Rs.1500/- per month, and the learned Tribunal has accepted that income as such. Not only that the learned Tribunal has taken into account possibility of future enhancement in the income, and has assessed the income at Rs.2000/- and assessed the dependency of the family at Rs.1400/- per month. The deceased was 40 years of age at the time of accident, and applying multiplier of 12, the compensation has been assessed. In my view, in view of the recent trend of judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, apart from the fact that the multiplier of 12 is excessive, even the future prospects of enhancement of income could also not be considered. In that view of the matter, in absence of any appeal by the owner, or valid appeal by the insurer on quantum, the quantum cannot be interfered with, much less can it be interfered upwardly in favour of the claimant. As 3 such, the finding on issue No.2 does not require any interference. It is then contended that while making the award the learned Tribunal has not awarded any interest. The accident in this case occurred on 24.3.1990 and the claim petition has been filed on 15.4.1991, which was decreed on 25.5.96. It is informed that the payment of compensation has been made in the year 1998 only, and at the same time, in the award, no reasons have been given by the learned Tribunal for not awarding any interest. In my view, in such circumstances, the claimants are entitled to be awarded interest on the amount of compensation awarded, at least @ 9% per annum, from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Consequently, the appeal No.674/96 is partly allowed only to the extent that claimants are held further entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till actual payment. Rest of the award is maintained. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/