1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.3110 OF 2008 (Smt. Sushilabai w/o Sudam Patil and others vs. Rampalsingh Malasingh and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. N.B.Suryawanshi, Adv., for the appellant. Mr.S.V.Kulkarni, Counsel for respondent no.3. Mr.D.S.Bagul, Counsel for respondent no.5. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE:19-3-2010 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. N.B.Suryawanshi, Counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.V.Kulkarni, Counsel for respondent no.3, and Mr.D.S.Bagul, Counsel for respondent No.5 ( M.S.R.T.C.). 2. The challenge to the orders of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is restricted by the appellant to the extent of non grant of interest from the date of petition, which the learned Judge 2 has awarded from the date of order at 9 per cent. 3. The reasons are assigned by the learned Judge in paragraph No. 23 of the order which is as under: "23. From the perusal of record, it appears that issues are framed by my learned predecessor on 4.11.1999 and the evidence of AM No.1 Sushilabai is recorded by this Tribunal at Exh.42 on 18.8.2003. The above circumstance speaks volume that the applicants themselves are responsible for the delay in the disposal of the present petition. Under such circumstances, the applicants cannot be allowed to take advantage of their wrong by claiming interest from the date of petition. Thus, for the aforesaid reason, the applicants are awarded interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum, from the date of passing of the judgment and order." 4. With the assistance of both the learned Counsel, original record of the learned Judge is perused, particularly, the Roznama and it is more than vivid that, on most of the occasions, the matter 3 was protracted on the ground, Court time being over, adjourned for orders or adjourned for issues. 5. Even subsequently, after the issues, the matter was transferred from Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Dhule, to Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Shahada, and notice was issued to the claimant and there is little delay. On perusal of the record, I find, at the most, delay attributed to the claimant could be of seven months running from 5th Dec.,2002 to 3rd July, 2003. However, this delay by itself is negligible, could not be a basis to disturbe grant of award from the date of the petition. The observation of the learned Judge, referred above, is certainly uncalled for and, particularly, in a matter where the Legislation oscillates in favour of the claimants. There is no dereliction on the part of the claimant to avoid the court proceedings. Hence, the award under challenge needs modification 4 as under: The appeal is partly allowed. The award remains unaltered except grant of interest at the rate of 9 per cent on the awarded amount from the date of petition till realization. No costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/3110-08fa