K % HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR SB: Hon'ble ShriJustice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.CClNo. 1133 2010 APPELLANTS Durpati and others f^ RESPONDENTS Versus Ajay Kumar Chandra ORDER For Pronouncement of Order ^ .03.201 1 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge /2-3 ;03.201T 1 ./'^•^. !<i' s ^-^-^.. i 1'^.. ^^^y' .^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench Hon'ble Shri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar, J. IVi.A.fONo. 1133/2010 Appellants 1. Durpati, Wa7o Bahartaram, aged about 38 years. 2. Nandiai, S/o Prabhu Chandra, aged about 75 years, 3. Netram, S/o Late Baharta Ram, aged about 26 years, 4. Ku. KirtanBai, D/o Late Baharta Ram, aged about21 years, 5. Keshav Prasad, Late Baharta Ram, aged about 18 years. AI! R/o Viliage Jhairaunda, Tahsi!- Jaijaipur, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versus 1. Ajya Kumar Chandra, S/o Bhuvanial, VIEIage Ragja, P.S.-Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Owner 2. Suresh Kumar Kripatani, S/o Manohariai Kripaiani, R/o Near Ashok Talkies, Statlon Road, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Snsurer 3. National Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, Branch Qffice at Priyadarshni Nagar, Vyapar Vihar, Biiaspur, District Bliaspur (C.G.) Appeal under Section 173 of the R/Sotor Vehicles Act Respondenfs/ Driver Present: Shri H.S. Pate!, counse! for the appeiiants. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon ^1.03.2011) This is claimants' appea! for enhancement of compensation of Rs.3,87,000/- passed in ciaim case No. 22/2007 by the Additional Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunai, Sakti vide order dated Sth April, 2010. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- sought by the claimants by filing claim petition under section 1SS of the Motor Vehlcles Act (for short 'the Act') for the death of Bahartaram Chandra in the motor .^^^ ,^":,J',,'^ "^ 1 f-,^i^ I I %gs2jjl 1 ...^'' ^ z ^ accident caused by respondent No.1 on 05.10.2006, the Tribunai, on close scrutiny of the evidence ied by the parties, materiai placed and submisslons made by respective parties, heid that on account of rash and negilgent drivlng of driver of Mahendra Pikup bearing registration No. C.G. 11 A/5059 (for short 'the offending vehicle') accident took place and Bahartaram, who was riding motor cycle, died on the spot; as the offending vehicie was insured with the Nationa! insurance Company Limited, therefore, the insurance company was liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunai whiie holding such, awarded compensation of Rs.3,87,000/- to the ciaimants for the dsath of Bahartaram in the motor accident and directed respondent No.3 / insurance company to the compensation with interest at 6% per annum. However, the Tribunai has not held that interest shall be payable from the date of fliing of ciaim petition tiIE its reaiizatlon. 3. As the respondents have not fiied any appea! against the impugned award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finaiity. 4. Aggrieved by the insufficient compensation, the appeliants preferred the instant appea! for enhancement. 5. Shri H.S. Pate!, tearned counsei for the appeilant, argued that the learned CIaims Tribuna! has erred in awarding simpie interest at 6 % per annum whereas it should be @ 7.5% per annum. He further argued that the iearned CEaims Tribuna! has applied multiplier of 15 which is on lower side; has erred in not awarding interest from the date of fiiing of cEaim petition. No other point was urged. 6. On the other hand, Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, learned counsel for rsspondent No.S/insurance company argued in support of the impugned award. 7. Having heard iearned counsei for the parties, i have perused the impugned award induding record of the Tribunal. The Tribunai, on scrutiny of the evidence led before it, he!d that although the claimants pieaded that the deceased was earning Rs.200/- per day, but as the claimants couid not file any such document to show the exact income of the deceased, therefore, the Tribunal has taken the income of the 3 deceased at Rs.100/- per day, Rs.3000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. After deducting one-third towards persona! expenses, the annuai dependency v/as worked out by the Tribunal to Rs.24,000/-. Taking into account the age of the deceased between 40 - 45, it applied multiplier of 15 and multiplied the annual dependency of Rs.24,000/- with multipiier of 15 and then worked out to Rs.3,60,000/- towards total dependency. By adding Rs.27,000/- under other permissible heads, the Tribunal worked out total compensation of Rs.3,87,000/- for the death of Bahartaram in the motor accident. The approach of the Tribunal in assessing compensation and applying multiplier of 15 is proper and cannot be found fauit. Aithough the approach ofthe Tribunal sn awarding simpie interest at 6% p.m. on the total compensation is proper, but it ignored in awarding interest from ths date offiling claim petition. 8. it is trite !aw that interest is payable from the date of application at such rate at the discretion of the Tribunals. Section 171 ofthe Act reads as under: "171. Award of interest where any c3aim is ailowed.—Where any Ciaims Tribuna! allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunai may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shal! also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify En this behaif. A perusal of above provision wouid ciearly reveai that interest shal! a!so be paid at such rate and from such date at the discretion of the Tribunals, in addition to the amount of compensation, not eariier than the date of making the claim would mean to say that prior to filing of claim petition and after accident interest may not be awarded. 9. in the instant case, a bare perusai of record has clearly revealed that claim petition was preferred by the claimants on 19.03.2007 and the same was disposed of by the Tribuna! in the year 2010. Admittedly, there is deiay of more than three years in disposing of the matter. Due to delay, the claimants being the dependants of the deceased were made to suffer hardship and financial distress. in catena of decisions rendered by the High Courts and Supreme Court, it is held that it is settled law that the Interest can be awarded from the date of institution of the case at the discretion ofthe TribunaEs. .^-•"•;•";• ^ "^^y'^'^ ^ ^ 10. In that view of the matter, l deem it proper to award interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is ailowed to the extent indicated above. Noorderastocosts. i Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge @