SINULi: ufcNCH C.6-' \5^ ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (U/A 227) No.- i(^^Q /2009 PETITIONERS CLAIMANTS ^. / :-1. SMT. SUSHILA, WD/0 SHRI DASHRAT PRASAD SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YRS 2. RAJKUMAR SHARMA S/0 LATE SHRI DASHRAT PRASAD SHARMA, AGED ABOUT41YRS. 3. ASHWINI KUMAR DASHRAT PRASAD ABOUT39YRS. 4. BASANT KUMAR DASHRAT PRASAD ABOUT 36 YRS. ALLABOVE R/0 VILLAGE - PHARHADA, POLICE STATION - AKALTARA, TAHSIL - -JANJGIR, DISTRICT - BILASPUR (CG) Vrs. S/0 LATE SHARMA, S/0 LATE SHARMA, SHRI AGED SHRI AGED '^ RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS k ^^>y ^."^ .'^' rrv ^^ .4 . -:^y f^y ^f .v<--" / _^i... :-1. RAJENDRA PRASAD SHUKLA S/0 SHRI GANESH PRASAD SHUKLA, R/0 VILLAGE KASARIDIH, DISTRICT - DURG (CG) OWNER OF TRUCK N0.- MPT/9390 ^2. RAHILAL S/0 DEENDAYAL, R/0 VILLAGE - NANPURI, POLICE STATION - GANJ, DISTRICT RAIPUR (CG) DRIVER ^3. STATE OF C.G. (EARLIER WAS STATE OF M.P.), THROUGH - COLLECTOR, BILASPUR 4. KASI RAO, S/0 JAGANNATH RAO, JEEP DRIVER, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, RANGE HASDEO BANGO, PROJECT - AKALTARA, DISTRICT - BILASPUR (CG) 5. THE ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. THROUGH : BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH - DURG, DISTRICT DURG (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER SECTION 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA irt; HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH: BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Manindra Mohan Shrivastava. J. WRFT PETTTION (2271 N0^5700009 Smfc Sushila and o<hers Petitioners Claimants Resoondents Non-applteants Versus Rajencha Prasad Shukto and others Writ Peijtfon under Artiete 227 of the Constttutfon of India Presenfc- Shri V. A. Goverdhan, counsel forttie petttjonere. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No.3. Shri AUiishek Sinha wtth Shri Qianshyam Patel, oounsel for respondent Na& .ORDER (^assed on this26mdayofMarch. 2(h0) By this petitfon uncter ArBcte 227 of the Constilutfon of India. p^jtionereAilaimants have chaNenged th®legadty and valtelity of order dated 05-91-2001 passed A»ythe 1st Motor AccMents Ctainw Tribunal, BBagpur (For short Ihe TribunaH in Ctaum Case No.47 of 1986. (2) The facts relevant and necessary for decisfon of the present case are that petttkmers/clainwnts had f^^^^^^^ under Motor Vehteto Act, 1988 for grant of compensation on account of death of one Dashrarth, husband of the petjtioner No.1 and father pf petftipners No.2. 3 & 4. The Tribunal vide ite otder dated 3004-1994 passed an award tw payment of compensation of Rs.2,40,000^- limittng liabMify of the insurance company to Ihe tune of Rs.SO.OOQ/-. (3) Aggrieved by the order ofthe Tribural, the petitioners/dajmants preferred an appeal (M.A.No.815 of 1994) before Ihe High Court and vide onter datod 3(M)3-2000, High Court altowed the appeal enhancing the amount <rf ^^^^^-j, ,. compensation from Rs.2.40.0(XV- to Rs.3,62,OOW-. The UabUify of th®insyrance company was ateq enhanced from Rs.SO.pay- to Rs.l.SO.OOCy-. Thereafter, the petifioners fitod an applicafion for fxecuUon a^ ofthe am^intwhich became due for payment in view pf the enhancement of award as also ttie limited liability of the insurance company by order dated 30-03-2000 passed by the High Court.In purported compBance of the order of the High Court, respondent No.S-insruancecpmpany cleppsjted an amount <rf Rs.l ,44,66(V". (4) The petjtfoners/daimants claime?! before the Tribunal that the insurance cwnpany has not paid ttie balarwe amount payabto to them uiider order dated 3(M)3-2000 as also the insurance company has not cprrectfy computed the amount payable, as direct&d by the High Cpurt vide Hs orderdated 30-03-2000. (5) On Uie other hand, acconMng to the iwpondent No.S-insurance company. as pertheorderof theHighCourt, onfyRs.1,44,660^^ r^^ to be paid whteh has been pakl and the onter of the Histfi Court has been complied with. (6) The Iwmied Tnbunalj^ imi:^ order dated OS^pl-2001 held that as perthe order ofthe H^h Court, insui^ce com pay an amount of Rs.1.45,247/-and Rs.1,44,66(y- has already been paKl, and therefwe, directed the insurance company to pay ttie balance amount of Rs.587/-. (7) Learned cqtinselfor fte pefit^^ aforesaid oreter submNted that whUe computtng the amount payabte, th®finding recorded bythe High Coyrt and order psesed have been comptotefy misintorpretod and misconstrued t^ the TrilMinal. It is argued that in the order ctated 30-03-2000 passed bythe Hi^ Coyrt^ttwascte^ hekl^U^ the dajmants woutel be entMted "^.^^w^ ^'-w:^y •^ ^ ft to total <»mpwsattonpf Rs.3,|?,oay-, w^ intoPllt at the rate of 8% per annum from the date oS^^i^^^^ate^fwynwi^^^ liabJINy of the insurance cornRany was enh^uv^from Rs^^^^ (101^.1^00^-, insurance company was lraA>to to pay ttw batance amount of ite Ua^^ with interest @ 8% perannum from ttie date ofappticatton.It is oontencted that as the insurance company htKl afr liabHilyjyf Rs,5Q,00(y- atong with admissibte interest totalamountingtoRs.61.e2(y-w 05-07-1984, thebalaiwe amount was required to be paud within two months. (8) Submissfon of leamed counsel Jw Ihe j^^ No.S-insurance company is that there hs» t)een no iltoffalHy on the part of the insurance oompany in malar^ payrnentjpyth@,b|tence|»no^ of onler dated 3(M)3-2(XX)passed bythe H®hCourt. tt has been submilted that as per the order pfttie High Cpurt, theywere required to pay interest @11% from the date of filinfl of appeat on the bala^ cf their liabHJfy which has been paid. (9) I have considered the nyal sybmissions ma<je by teamcid counsel for the partiw and perused the reconte. (10) In para 8 of oi^<te^ 3p4|3^000 pa»wd t^ Court in M.A.No.815 of 1984 (Annexure A^), foltowino has been recorded:- 8. "Therefore, the daimante woukl be entitted total compensatjon of Rs.3,62,000/-, canying Merest at ttw rato of 8% per annum from the date of applicsrtjon tMI tfie datB of paymwit. 9. 10. 11. The accWent took ptoce on 1(M)4-1983. At that time, the Hability of the tnsurance Companyuncter Swtion 95(1)(a) of the ,1^,^f ^;^S£^' -c^ ^7 Motor Vehicte Act (as amended from 1.10.1982) was to the extent of Rs.1,50,00(y-. The policy has to adhere to tWs provision. Therefore, the liabjlity extends to Rs.1,50,00(y-. 12. It is pointed out by Shri R. K. Thakur, teamed counsel for the hisurance Company, that the Insurance Company has already paki Rs.61 JB2D/- on 05-07-1994 indush/e interest as per award. It is directed that Ihe remaining amourrt along with interest shall be calculated and pakl within two months or etee, it wUI carry interest at the rate of 11% from the date of filihg the appeal in this Court till the date of payment. Fiffy percent award amount wtth the same rate of interest ^iall be paid by the State of Madh^i Pradeshwi in ttie same period with same sfipulatioh fixed wfth respect to the Insurance Company. The remahting amount shalt be paid by Rajendra Prasad ShuMa (Owner of the Truck) with same rate of interest and stiputetion. The appeal is allowed accordingty. The parties shall bear their own costs. ^ (11) From the order of the High Court, it is crystal clear that the clairoants were hekl entitted to total compensatjonof Rs.3,62.000^ with Intenst @ 8% per annum ftom the date of apptication Wl the date of p»aymentAs the ,liatNlity of the insurance com(»ny was enhanced ftom Rs.SOjOOOf- toRs.1,50^)00^-, an amount of Rs..61,620/- (RS.50.PPW-+ Interast) having, already been pakl on 05-07-1994, insurance company was Ijabte to pay batence amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards discharge pf its liabjlity. As tWs amount was included in Rs.3.62.000/-. insurance company was also liable to pey interest @ 8% per annum from the date of application.In para 12 ofthe onter dated 30-03-2000, ft has been cteariy recorded that the remaining amount atoi^ with interest shall be calculated and pakl wfthin two months.0bviously.,ttie remairong amount in so far as liabtlity of the insurance company js concemed. was Rs.1 Lakh as Rs.50.000/- along with interest was undisputecBy pakl pn 05-07-1904. The interest was liable to be calcutated @ 8% <rom the date of application as hekl in para-8 of ttie orcter dated 3(M)3-2000. The amount so arrived. was required to be pakl within stiputoted period of two months, in the went of faUure, such fs€^'%. ls";"i ! :.? ^ ;-,y ^' ^. i '^~-:i'.'! •s - ^ ^ 'nmiana amount will carry interest @ 11% from the date of fiUng <rf appeal before the High Court till the date of payinent. It is thus ctear that wtiite compufing amount payable, the Tribunal wss obliged to grant interest @ 8% from the date of fiUng of cteim applteatton on the balance amount i.e. Rs.1 Lakh. The oomputation ctone by the teamed Tnbunat is clwirty and apparentfy Utogal and suffere from perversity. A perusal ofthe impugned qrder shows that the teamed Tribunal has computedthe balance amountby deducting Rs.61,620/-from Rs.1,90.000/- and then granfing interest @ 11% from the date offiling ofappeal. Thfe approach was wholly erroneous and based on misconstruction of order dsrted 30-03-2000 passed by the High Court in claimants' appeal. Liability towards payment of interest @ 11% from the date of fUing of appeal till the date of payment would arise upon failure of the insurance company to pay the batance amount of Ijability @ 8% from the date (rfapplreation within twomonthsfrom 30-03-2000. (12) In view of the aforesakl dtscussfon, impugned ontor dated 05^)1-2001 is not sustainable in law as the teamed Tribunal acted wHh pervereity in ignoring the finding recording by the High Court vide its order dated 30-03-2000 in claimant's appeal. (13) The impugned order dated 05-01-2001 (Annexure P-1) is declared Utogal and herebyset askte to the extent of computing,liabJUty of insurance cpmpany. Matter fe remitted to the teamed Tribunal for proper compytaKon in accordance with law. Parties shall appear befbre the Tribunal on 26-04-2010. The learned Tribunal shall pass fresh order after heanng both the parties in accordance with tewpreferably within three months. _ -—- Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava