1 fa 1741.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1741 OF 2010 Smt. Rupali wd/o Rahul Aaglave (Jangam), Age : 21 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o At Present A-100/1, N-11, Sudarshan Nagar, HUDCO, Aurangabad. .. .. Appellant Versus 1. Arun S/o Jagannath Sonawane, Age : Major, Occu. : Driver, R/o At Post Vishnupriye Housing Society, Vivekanand Nagar, Manmad, Tq. Nandgaon, Dist. Nashik. 2. Sanjay M. Bhavsar, Age : Major, Occu. : Nil, R/o Pahade Chawl, Manmad, Tq. Nandgaon, Dist. Nashik. 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Branch Manager, (Copy to be served through its Branch Manager Office at Osmanpura, Aurangabad.) 4. Shobha W/o Balasaheb Aaglave (Jangam), Age : 42 Years, Occu. : Household, 2 fa 1741.10 R/o At Post Guldagad Estate, Pragati Vidyalaya Road, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 5. Balasaheb S/o Babanswamy Aaglave (Jangam), Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o At Post Guldagad Estate, Pragati Vidyalaya Road, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. .. .. Respondents Shri S. R. Pande, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri S. V. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Shri N. C. Garud, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 27TH APRIL, 2011. JUDGMENT : . Heard. Admit. 2. Taken up for final hearing with consent of parties. 3. The original claimant had filed petition for compensation U/Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of death of one Rahul, who was the husband of the claimant. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the parents of deceased Rahul. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 4,08,000/- to the claimant and 3 fa 1741.10 respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It was further ordered by the Tribunal that the said amount of Rs. 4,08,000/- shall be distributed equally amongst the claimant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The claimant being aggrieved by the manner in which the apportionment was made between her and respondent Nos. 4 and 5, so also non grant of interest and non grant of amount under different heads has filed present appeal. 4. Shri Pande, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that while apportioning the amount of compensation the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that the claimant is the widow and the respondent No. 4 and 5 are the parents. The widow would always be entitled for substantial amount than the parents. According to the learned counsel the widow should have been given 75% of the amount and only 25% amount would be payable to the parents. For the said purpose the learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of D Shanmukha Sundaramma vs. D Suneetha reported in 2009 (3) SCC 787. So also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 1542/2010. According to the learned counsel the respondent No. 5 is doing business and would not be entitled for any amount. 4 fa 1741.10 5. Shri Pande, the learned counsel further contends that even the Tribunal has committed an error in not granting the interest amount. The interest would follow the cause. So also the claimant is entitled for the amount under the head of loss of consortium, estate, love and affection and funeral expenses. 6. Shri N. C. Garud, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i. e. parents of the deceased submits that the Tribunal has properly apportioned the amount. According to the learned counsel the claimant has remarried that also is the factor which has to be taken into consideration. As such, the apportionment has been properly made. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court. But in said judgment no discussion appears to have taken place on apportionment of amount. 7. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the Insurance Company has no concern with the apportionment. The Tribunal has rightly not awarded any interest amount. To award interest or not is the discretion of the Court and the Tribunal has rightly not granted the interest 5 fa 1741.10 amount. 8. There is no straight-jacket formula governing apportionment of amount. The apportionment of compensation amongst the widow and the parents will be governed by the various circumstances. No doubt, the trend of the judgments delivered by the Apex Court shows that the widow would be getting major chunk of the compensation amount. But all other attending factors are also required to be considered. The occupation of respondent No. 5 is shown to be business. The respondent No. 4 is the mother of the deceased residing with the respondent No. 5 and also has other son. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 urged that the appellant remarried after the death of deceased Rahul. There is word against word. Taking into account these facts and the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of D Shanmukha Sundaramma referred supra I am of the opinion that the claimant widow of the deceased would be entitled for the 50% of the amount of compensation awarded and the parents would be entitled for the remaining 50% of the amount together. 9. So far as non grant of interest since the date of petition is 6 fa 1741.10 concerned, the same is erroneous. The interest follows the cause. The grant of future interest is subject matter of the discretion of the Court in view of Sec. 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the said discretion is not an unregulated discretion, but has to be exercised as per the well laid down judicial principles and legal norms. The interest is awarded on account of the fact that the person who is entitled to the amount has been deprived of the use and enjoyment of the said amount. When it is held that the claimants are entitled for a particular amount, then they are entitled to the said amount on the date of accident or at the most on the date of presentation of the petition and in such circumstances, the interest would follow. On the contrary if the interest is not been awarded, a duty is cast upon the Court to give reasons for non grant of interest. The Tribunal has not given any reasons for non grant of interest. The approach of the Tribunal in this regard is absolutely erroneous. As such, I hold that the amount awarded as compensation would also carry interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum. 10. The Tribunal has also failed to award the amounts under other heads as provided in Schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act. The claimant and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are also entitled for 7 fa 1741.10 the amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) towards funeral expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss love and affection. This amount shall be in addition to the amount of Rs. 4,08,000/- quantified and awarded by the Tribunal. In the result I pass the following order. O R D E R a. The first appeal is partly allowed. b. The award to the extent of non grant of interest is modified. It is held that the claimant and the original respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i. e. parents are entitled for an amount of Rs. 4,30,000/- (Rs. Four Lakh Thirty Thousands only) along with future interest at the rate of Rs. 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of deposit of the amount. The amount of compensation awarded shall be apportioned between the claimant who is the widow of the deceased and the present respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are the parents of the deceased. From the said amount of compensation awarded, the claimant widow would be entitled for 50% or the amount and the parents i. e. respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would together be entitled for remaining 50% of the amount. 8 fa 1741.10 c. The first appeal is accordingly disposed of, however, there shall be no order as to costs. d. Record and Proceedings be sent back. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/April 11