^•^l' IN THE HON''SLE HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR^ M.A (C). No. 9.^£ OF 2010 tw^" , VALUED AT Rs.5.73.500 /-} APPEAL UNDE» SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. u'. v-^':.-^ •^a^'1 APPELLANT INON-APPUCANT N0.31 ^..^•••/'.^ ^•^v^^..^ ?"A^' ^ .'2^ ^' .^" United India faisurance Company Lumted, Through: Jts Divisional Maoager, Diyisional-Office, Ist Floor, Krishna Complex,Kutehery Chowk, Raipiu-, District- Raipur (CG). VERSUS A- te. Abhimanyu Yadav, aged abotit-27 years,(House wife) <APPLICANT N0.21 ^"" Ka. Unnila, D/0- Abhimsinyu Yadav, aged about*09 years, Minor through her mother-Smt. Ahilya Bai (respoadent no. 1) fAPPLICAlWNO.St ^ (APK,ICANTN0.41 f :4. ^ $mt. Sixmati Yadav, W/o- Pandey Yadav, aged about- 55 years, t>aadey Yadav, aged about 60 ye^u-s, S/0-- Respondent No.l to 4 All are R/0- ViBage- Datrenga, P.S. - Tikarapara, Tah. & Distt. ~ Raipur (C.G.) fNON-APPUCANT N0-11 Mohammad Shabbeer, S/0- Ibrahim Musalman, aged< 45 years, Occupation ~ truck Driver, R/0- Pal Goods Transport Cosapany, Amanaka, Raipur, Tah. & Distt.-RaipiiT(C.G.) ^ /NON-APPLICANT N0.2) ^ Pal Goods Transport Company, Through: Its Maiiaging Director, Harbmdar Singb Viz» S/0- Late Suresndsa- Singh Viz, aged-58 years, R/O-Tar- Bahar Bflaspur^ Tah, 8& Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No. 977 of 2010 APPELLANT : United indla Insurance Comj^ny {NON-APPUCANTNO. 31 Limited RESPONDENTS Versus Rudramanj Sahu and others. M.A.fONo. 976 of 2010 APPELLANT : United India Insurance Company (NON-APPLICANT N0.3 Limited Versus RESPONDENTS : Smt. Ahilya Bai and others. < APPEALS UNDER SECTJON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri I.M. Quddusl & Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal. JJ. Present: Shri Dashrath Gupta, counset for the appeliant/lnsurance Company. ORAL ORDER {Passed on 25th day of September, 2010) Per I.M. Quddusi. J. Heard. 2. Since M.A.(C) No. 977/2010 & MA(C) No.976/2010 involved the same facts and question of law, are being disposed of by this common order. 3. These are two appeals arising out of two awards of the same accident dated 07-04-2010 passed by Seventh Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tnbunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunai') in Claim Case Nos. 41/2008 and 42/2008 respectively. One is injury case and the other is death case. 4. Brief facts of the cases are that in M.A.(C) No.977/2010, the petitioner/ctaimant Rudramani Sahu, in Claim Case No.41/2008driver of the Auto-rickshaw, on 06-04-20)8 while driving the Auto bearing registration No. C.G. 04 T/3805 and was going to Raipur from Arang, near Navgaon, was dashect by the Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 10-A/6437 which was coming from opposite direction, by driving the -,./ vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the driver of the Auto-rickshaw sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. 5. In M.A.(C) No.976/2010, Abhimanyu Yadav (since deceased), in Cialm Case No.42/2008 owner of the Auto-rickshaw, on 06-04-2008. while going from Arang to Raipur in his Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. C.G. 04 T/3805, near Navgaon he was dashed by the Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 10-A/6437 which was coming from opposite direction, by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Truck, as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said accident. 6. The claimants have preferred claim petitions claimjng compensation of Rs.17,00,000/- and Rs. 17,75,000/- respectively in cJaim Case No. 41/2008 for the injuries sustained in tiie acddent and for the death ofthe deceased in Ctaim Case No. 42/2008. 7. The learned Tribunal concerned, on close scrutiny of evidence led by the parties, materiai placed and submissions made, avtrarded a total amount of Rs.5,29,000/- in Claim Case No.41/2008 and Rs.5,73,500/- in Claim Case No. 42/2008 as compensation. 8. Learned counsel for the appellanVlnsurance Company has submitted that th©Tribunal concemed has committed irregularity in not hotding the contributory negljgence. 9. With regard to the contributory negligence, it is specifically mentioned in the decision for issue Nos. 3 and4 in the impugned award, no rebuttal has been made to the statement of the claimants' witnesses. The finding is that the auto-rickshaw was running slowly on ite proper side and the Truck which was comSng with a quite good speed took wrong side and collided with the auto-rickshaw. In such a situation, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the auto-rickshaw. Nothing has been brought on record. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellan^lnsurance Company further submitted that the Tribunal concerned, imposed 6% jnterest o" the awarded amount and if the amount invoh^d jn the award is not paid withjn two months, interest @ 9% per annum has also been imposed on the appellant/ Insurance Company. 1 ^': ^^- 11. In this regard, in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahacfur anef otheiv: reported in (2004) 2 SCC 370, Hon'ble the Apex Court has heJd in para 13 of the judgment which is quoted below: "13. Though Section 110-CC of the Act (correspondjng to Section 171 ofthe newAct) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the clalmant can ciaim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulatjon for higher rate of interest in case of defauit can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particuSar date, thsre is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or impljed power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed bytheTribunal." 12. A perusal of the above quoted paragraph wouid show that the dlscretion has been exercised by the TribunaJ to award simpte interest on the amount of compensation at a particylar rate and from a particuiar date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. In view of the above, the award is Jiable to be modified to the extent that the appeilant/lnsurance Company wouid be liable to pay interest @ 6% through out tjll its payment on the amount involved in the impugned awarcts. On other grounds, the appeals are dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the appeals are disposed of. Kvr Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge