HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU CIMA No. 18/2008 Date of Decision: 11.12.2008 Saroti Devi & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE J. P. SINGH, JUDGE. Appearing Counsel: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate. For Responden(s ) : Mr. Baldev Singh, Advocate. i) Whether approved for reporting in Press/Journal/Media : Yes ii) Whether to be reported in Digest/Journal : Yes _______________________________________________________________________________ Appellant, Saroti Devi’s son Tilak Raj had died in a motor vehicular accident because of the rash and negligent driving of Bus No. JK02E-3225 by Prem Dass respondent no.3 on 14.03.99 near Prem Nagar, Doda. She along with her two sons filed Claim Petition No. 341/Claim in Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu, seeking compensation for Tilak Raj’s death. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal passed an award for an amount of Rs.2,10,560/- in favour of appellant no.1. Interest allowed @ 7% per annum was, however, made payable with effect from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till 04.01.2001 and from December 20, 2006 till realization of the 2 amount. The Tribunal had thus disallowed interest for five years eleven months and fourteen days. Dissatisfied with Tribunal’s refusal to award interest with effect from 05.01.2001 to 19.12.2006, appellant no.1 has filed this appeal questioning the Tribunal’s refusal to award interest for the aforementioned period. Mr. Rakesh Sharma appearing for the Claimant submitted that delay on the part of the Tribunal in summoning appellants’ witnesses, when the appellants had done all that they were required to do to facilitate the Tribunal to summon the witnesses, should not, looked from any angle be construed as appellants’ default in prosecuting their claim petition which may debar them from claiming interest on the amount awarded to appellant no.1. Justifying refusal of interest by the Tribunal to appellant no.1, Insurance Company’s counsel, Mr. Baldev Singh has urged that as no effective proceedings had taken place during the period for which the interest has been disallowed, so refusal of interest by the Tribunal for the period may not require interference. Learned counsel refers to Pranab Kumar Mitra and anr. versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and anr., reported as 2007 ACJ, 1467 to support his submission. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the Tribunal. 3 The Tribunal has not assigned any reasons for disallowing interest to the claimants from January 2001 to December, 2006. This finding of the Tribunal sans reasons in support thereof cannot thus be sustained, for a finding by a judicial authority without reasons cannot be termed as a justified finding. This is so because unless the reasons are spelt out by the Judicial Authority in recording its finding it may not be ascertained as to what had weighed with the Authority in recording such finding. Such a finding is, therefore, required to be treated as arbitrary which may not be acted upon. Perusal of the interim orders passed by the Tribunal in appellants’ claim petition, however, indicates that the appellants had not been responsible for the delayed disposal of their claim petition and much of the time appears to have been consumed by the Tribunal in securing the presence of an Accountant from Senior Superintendent of Police’s Office at Doda who had to prove the income of the deceased. Even warrants had been issued by the Tribunal to secure the presence of this witness. As the proceedings before the Tribunal have not been delayed because of any willful default or inaction of the appellants, so payment of interest by the respondents on the awarded amount for the period it has been disallowed by the Tribunal could not have been refused to appellant no.1. 4 Pranab Kumar Mitra and anr. versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited and anr., reported as 2007 ACJ, 1467 cited by learned counsel for the Insurance Company has no application to the facts of the present case because the delay in the present case had not occasioned because of any lapse or willful default of the appellants which, on the other hand, had occasioned because the Tribunal had not been able to secure the presence of the official witness whose presence was very essential for recording a finding as to the income of the deceased. I am, therefore, of the view that appellant no.1 was entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization which has been erroneously refused to her by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal is, accordingly, modified and it is provided that appellant no.1 shall be entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. This appeal is, accordingly, allowed on the above terms. (J. P. Singh) Judge JAMMU 11.12.2008 Pawan Chopra