IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 561 of 2005 Leelawati & others … Appellants Versus Daljeet Singh & another … Respondents Sri Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for appellants Sri D. S. Patni, Advocate, for respondent no. 2 Dated: April 28, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 16.02.2005, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Fast Track Court, Nainital, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 139/1997, Leelawati & others versus Daljeet Singh & another. The claimants-Smt. Leelawati & others filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, for grant of compensation in lieu of death of deceased-Rajendra Prasad Sharma in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimants, on 7.4.1997 when deceased-Rajendra Prasad Sharma, along with one Sri Om Prakash Sharma, was going to his village from Teraghat through his motorcycle, the driver of Bus bearing Registration No. U.P.26-2477 which was being plied rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcyclist from the rear side, due to which deceased-Rajendra Prasad Sharma died instantaneously and driver of offending bus ran away along with bus. The 2 claimants has pleaded that at the time of accident deceased was working as carpenter and used to earn Rs.4500/- per month. The claimants thus claimed compensation against the opposite parties. The opposite party no. 1 filed written statement denying the allegations made in the claim petition but admitted the factum of accident and lodging of F.I.R. of the said accident. He has pleaded that at the time of accident the bus was being plied according to conditions of insurance policy as well as of Motor Vehicles Act and the said vehicle was being plied by Sri Hoshiyar Singh having valid driving licence. He has further pleaded that at the time of accident vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company, therefore, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if any. The opposite party no. 2-insurance company filed its written statement denying the allegations made in claim petition. It has pleaded that it was not given any information with regard to alleged accident under Section 158(6) of M.V. Act by owner of vehicle. It has also pleaded that the claim petition has been filed on wrong facts and same is liable to be dismissed. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The learned Tribunal after having considered the material available before it and hearing learned counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition, against the opposite party no. 2-United India Insurance Company Limited, for a sum of 3 Rs.2,67,000/-, as compensation, in favour of claimants. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the appellants-claimants have preferred the appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for appellants, Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his argument to the aspect that learned Tribunal has not considered that claim petition was filed in the month of May, 1997 before the Tribunal and insurer/opposite party no. 2 filed its written statement on 06.04.1998 and insured filed his written statement on 30.04.2000 and as such finding of the learned Tribunal in not granting any interest on account of delay caused by appellant in disposal of claim, is perverse and contrary to the facts of the case. I have also gone through the impugned judgment and award. The learned Tribunal has refused to grant interest on the ground that the petition remained pending for a long period due to the delay on account of claimants themselves, as the claimants amended the petition and took time before the opposite parties could file their written statements. Later on, the claim was dismissed for default of claimants and thereafter Miscellaneous Case was filed for restoration. During hearing of claim also the petitioners took adjournments. The finding of the Tribunal has been recorded on 4 reasonable ground and the same does not require any interference. Certainly, the delay has been caused by the claimants, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in refusing the grant interest on the awarded amount. No other point has been pressed. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal, is confirmed. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP