IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.211 of 2007 1. Md. Sadaquat Hussain, son of late Riyasat Hussain (claimant no.1)/(Appellant no.1)/Review petitioner no.1. 2. Saheedan Bibi wife of Md. Sadquat Hussain (claimant no.2)/(Appellant no.2)/Review petitioner no.2 Both resident of village Chainpur Bazar, P.S. Chainpur, District Kaimur (Bhabhua) ….Petitioners-Review Petitioners Versus . 1. Sri Surendra Singh, son of Muna Singh, resident of Chandasi Mugalsarai (Varanasi), U.P. at present Baulia Road, Sasaram, District Rohtas at Sasaram (Opposite Party no.1)(Respondent no.1)-Opp. Party no.1 2. The New India Assurance Compandy Ltd., Ganesh Market, G.T. Road, Sasaram, District Rohtas. (Sasaram) (Opposite Party no.2)(Respondent no.2)-Opp. Party no.2 3. Sri Girja Sharma, son of Katwaru Sharma, resident of Dhanpurwan, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas at Sasaram. (Opposite Party no.3)(Respondent no.3)-Opp. Party no.3 …Respondents-Opposite Parties. ------- For the petitioners : M/s P. L. Jaiswal and Anil Kumar, Advocates. For the Opposite Party- Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Intervenor: Advocate. ------- 13/ 13.01.2010 This petition has been filed by the claimants-petitioners for review of order dated 17.08.2007, by which a Bench of this Court while allowing M.A. No. 476 of 2003 did not grant any interest on the amount of compensation fixed for being paid by the opposite parties to the claimants. 2. From the arguments of the parties as well as from the review petition and materials on record, it is quite apparent that that the petitioners are aggrieved due to the fact that although this Court, by order under review, enhanced the amount of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, it did not provide any interest to be paid throughout as per the provision of section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( hereinafter 2 referred to as `the Act’ for the shake of brevity), which is applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as the matter arises out of a motor vehicle claim case. 3. The provision of section 171 of the Act provides that where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under the Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. From a perusal of the said provision, it transpires that the same is not mandatory rather it is discretionary for the Court to allow interest at a proper rate if the circumstances so require as discretion has to be exercised equitably and judiciously. 4. So far the case laws cited by the parties are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Nazir and another, reported in 2009 (3) PLJR (SC) 190 (Paragraph 23) merely held that the Court may grant/enhance interest. So far the other decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Patna High Court and Karnataka High Court are concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Manju Devi and another vs. Musafir Paswan and another, reported in 2003(2) PLJR (SC) 120 (paragraph 6) and in case of Chameli Wati and another vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and others, reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1191 (paragraphs 1 and 2) and this High Court in case of Smt. Binda Devi @ Vidya Devi vs. Smt. Pushpa Khanna, reported in 2009(4) PLJR 20 ( Paragraph 12) and Karnataka High Court in case of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Bangalore and another vs. S. Jagdish and another, reported in 3 AIR 1991 Karnataka 258 (paragraph 5) merely granted/enhanced the interest on the amount of compensation, but no where held that it was mandatory for a Court to grant interest on the amount of compensation. 5. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Deo Patodi and others, reported in 2009(3) BBCJ (SC) 416 (paragraphs 6,9,11 &14 to 18 ) did not mention about any interest and found that there was no hard and fast rule for fixing interest. The Delhi High Court also in case of Dharam Singh and another vs. Smt. Parveen Sehgal and others, reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 347 ( paragraph 16) granted interest on the amount of compensation after considering the facts and circumstances of the case as the Tribunal had not given any reason for not granting interest. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Secretary, Irrigation Department vs. G. C. Roy, reported in 1992(1) SCC 508 (paragraphs 43 and 44), which was a case under the provision of sections 14 and 49 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, wherein it was held that interest can be awarded by the Arbitrator having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case for doing complete justice between the parties if the agreement does not contain anything to the contrary. In the said case, the point in issue was merely as to whether an Arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and it was held that the Arbitrator could have awarded interest but in that case also it was not held that the interest was mandatorily required to be fixed. 7. From the aforesaid provisions of law as well as case laws, 4 it is quite apparent that under section 171 of the Act, levying interest on the amount of compensation is not mandatory rather it is discretionary for the Tribunal or the Court to direct payment of interest on the amount of compensation fixed in the facts and circumstances of the respective case. 8. In the instant case, it transpires that as per earlier order of the Tribunal, Rs.50,000.00 had already been paid as interim compensation by the New India Assurance Company Limited and vide order of this Court dated 17.08.2007 a further amount of Rs.1,02,000.00 was to be paid by the said Assurance Company. Furthermore, multiplier has also been properly applied along with other legal requisites and the facts of the case clearly show that the principle of equity and justice in the instant case did not require any interest to be paid on the amount of compensation fixed by the order sought to be reviewed in the instant case. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record nor does it find any fresh material to take a different view. Accordingly, this civil review petition is dismissed. MPS/ AFR ( S.N. Hussain, J. )