IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.499 of 2008 SACHIDANAND SINHA SON OF LATE NANDJI PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NAYAGON, P.O. AND P.S. KESARIYA, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN. --APPELLANT Versus 1. SURESH KUMAR SON OF KARAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA 2717 KAROLLBAGH GATE, DELHI-6 OWNER OF THE TRUCK T.D.V.NO.H.R.30-6193. 2. RAM MOHAR SINGHSON OF LAKHAN RAM, HO.NO. 184181 ROAD RAIPUR (M.P.) DRIVING LICENCE NO.15091/85. --RESPONDENTS 1ST SET 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. THROUGH MANAGER UDYOG BIHAR BRANCH OFFICE 329, PHASE 2 GURGAON (J) S. HARYANA, POLICY NO.041403131 /21/130/001-60093 DATED 24.4.93. --RESPONDENT 2ND SET 4. AJAY KUMAR SON OF SACHIDANAND SINHA. 5. RAKESH KUMAR SON OF SACHIDANAND SINHA. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE NAYAGON P.O. AND P.S. KESARIYA DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. 6. NEETA VERMA, WIFE OF ASHOK KUAMR. RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NEW CHANDMARI, P.O AND P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN. 7. KUMARI SUNITA WIFE OF PRABHAT RANJAN D/O SACHIDANAND SINHA. 8. KUMARI POONAM WIFE OF RAJEEVA RANJAN SRIVASTAVA, D/O SACHIDANAND SINHA. BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA NEW BELBANWA,P.O. AND P.S. MOTIHARI TOWN DISTRICT-EAST CHAMPARAN. --RESPONDENTS 3RD SET. For the Appellant : Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III For respondent no.3 : Mr. Prakash Kumar 9 13.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent no.3. None appeared to represent other 2 respondents. This appeal has been preferred by the claimant against the appellant by order dated 22nd May, 2008 passed by Second Additional District Judge-cum-Claim Tribunal, Motihari, East Champaran in Claim Case no.12 of 1994 awarding a sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation of death of son of the claimant with interest at the rate of six percent per annum from the date of order. The learned counsel for the appellant, after some arguments, confined his submission only as regards to denial of interest from the date of filing of the application instead it was granted from the date of order. The learned counsel for the respondent drew my attention towards paragraph no.4 of impugned order and submitted that earlier vide order dated 17th June, 1998 matter was decided by Lok Adalat and a sum of Rs.70,000/- was awarded subject to validity of driving licence but since neither the owner nor the claimant Could be able to produced any evidence in this regard. Thus, the aforesaid order became inoperative causing further proceeding before the court below. The learned counsel for the respondent could 3 not point out any material justifying denial of interest to the claim at least from the date of order of Lok Adalat became inoperative. It is undisputed position of law that claimant is entitled for interest from the date of application unless otherwise directed. Considering the facts and circumstances and earlier decision of Lok Adalat, I find it proper to award interest to the claimant on the quantum so awarded as compensation from the date of finding of the Lok Adalat became inoperative and Claim Tribunal under compelling circumstances proceeded for adjudication. With above modification in the impugned order, the appeal stands dismissed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) AAhmad