FAO No.116 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.116 of 1992 DATE OF DECISION: January 20, 2011 MEWA RAM ETC. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS SURINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement. No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: MS. EKTA THAKUR, ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS. NONE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2. MR. INDERJIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE AND MR. PARDEEP BEDI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The appeal is at the instance of the claimant seeking for enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal, while awarding compensation at `7500/- for the injury, directed the amount to be paid within two months and levied interest at 12% if the amount was not paid. Learned counsel states that interest must have been awarded from the date of the petition till the date of payment and not merely as on default in the manner done by the Tribunal. 2. The case to be reappraised on the issue of interest for a modest award of `7500/- does not appeal to me to be justified. If the amount had not been paid it would have borne interest at 12%. If the amount had been FAO No.116 of 1992 -2- paid and if the Tribunal thought for a modest sum determined, there was no requirement to load interest, I am not prepared to re-examine the same. Section 172 of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for payment of interest provides for a discretion of a Tribunal by the use of expression “such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation . . . .” The discretion exercised by the Tribunal for a modest claim of award would require no reappraisal. Although the claim was filed under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in view of the inability of the party to establish negligence the case was entertained only on No Fault basis under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The manner in which the case was required to be dealt with could not have made possible for a Tribunal to assess the compensation at any higher sum than what was statutorily provided under Section 92A of the Motor Vehicles Act. I will, therefore, retain the award and dismiss the appeal. January 20, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE