1 fa604­10 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 604 OF 2010 Mangal Balu Waghmare & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. B. Parasmal K. Bhavarlal & Anr. .. Respondents ..... Priyal G. Sarda for the appellants. Urmila K. Sanil for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : JULY 18, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. This Court has issued notice for final disposal at admission stage. 2. The appellants are the claimants in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1888. The claim petition was filed claiming compensation on account of the death of one Balu Audumbar Waghmare in a motor accident. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased and the second to fifth appellants are the children of the deceased. The sixth appellant is the father of the deceased. 3. The Tribunal passed an Award in the sum of Rs.2,72,972/­ 2 fa604­10 with interest at the rate of Rs.7.5 % per annum from the date of the impugned Judgment and Award. Interest from the date of filing of the claim petition was not granted on the ground that the appellants were negligent in the matter of possessing with the claim petition and in fact at one stage the claim petition was ordered to be fixed for dismissal order on account of absence of the appellants. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied on the copy of the Roznama of the proceedings. He submitted that though the Roznama shows that the appellants were absent on few dates but, the progress of the claim petition was not hampered on account of their absence. He submitted that there was no reason to deny interest from the date of application. The learned counsel for the second respondent supported the impugned Judgment and Award. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. I have perused the Roznama of the proceedings. Perusal of the Roznama shows that the issues were settled on 6th September, 2005. Till that date, there is nothing on record to show that there was any default on the part of the appellants. On next two dates i.e. On 7th November 2005 and 16th January, 2006 there was no default on the part of 3 fa604­10 the appellants. Thereafter several dates were fixed from 7th March, 2006 to 18th July, 2009. Perusal of the Roznama shows that from 7th March, 2006 to 29th June, 2009, the appellants were absent at least on 17 dates fixed for hearing. On 18th July, 2009, though the appellants were not absent, their advocate applied for adjournment. On 3rd August, 2009 and 17th August, 2009, the Roznama does not record absence of the appellants. It appears that on 14th September, 2009 a new advocate appeared for the appellants and filed Vakalatnama. Thereafter, on 24th November, 2009 and 7th December, 2009, the appellants were absent and in fact on 7th December, 2009 the claim petition was fixed for dismissal. Even on 11th December, 2009, the advocate for the appellant applied for adjournment. The appellant proceeded with the hearing on 17th December, 2009 and 28th December, 2009. Immediately on 29th December, 2009 the claim petition decided. Thus, the Roznama shows that from 7th March, 2006 till 11th December, 2009, the hearing of claim petition could not proceed either on account of absence of the appellants or on account of adjournments sought by the advocate for the appellants. Thus, there was some justification to the Tribunal to deny the interest to the appellants from 7th March, 2006 till the disposal of the claim petition. However, there was no reason to deny interest from 16th November, 2002 i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition till 6th 4 fa604­10 March, 2006. For that limited period, interest deserves to be granted. 6. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: i. It is directed that the appellant will be entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum on principal amount of Rs.2,72,972/­ from 16th November, 2002 till 6th March, 2006 and thereafter from the date of passing of the Judgment and Award. ii. The impugned Judgment and Award is modified only to above extent. iii. Appeal is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. (A.S.OKA, J.)