IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.489 of 2010 1. Smt. Maharani Devi , W/o Late Arjun Singh. 2. Neeraj Kumar, S/o Late Arjun Singh. Both resident of Village Nepa, P.O. Fatehpur, P.S. – Tekari, District – Gaya. ……… Applicants / Appellants Versus 1. Sri Tanu Kumar Prabhakar, S/o Kavendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village – Jalalpur, P.S. – Tekari, District – Gaya. 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager Kashinath More, P.S. Civil Lines Town, District – Gaya. ……….. Opposite Parties / Respondents ---------------------------------- 8 18.10.2011 Heard Sri Ravindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 /Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. The present appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimants under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’) on a limited question that the learned 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Claims Tribunal’) has failed to direct the respondent no. 2 (insurer of the offending vehicle) to make payment of interest on the compensation amount of Rs. 1,88,388/- from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. In the present case the learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim petition has directed the respondent no. 2 (insurer of the offending vehicle) for payment of the compensation amount i.e. Rs. 1,88,388/- within a period of two months from the date of the order, failing which, the claimants shall be entitled to 2 realize the same along with interest at the rate of 08% per annum. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,88,388/- has come after deduction of Rs. 50,000/- which was paid as interim compensation under section 140 of the M.V. Act. 4. Short fact of the case is that in a vehicular accident the husband of the claimant on 22.12.2004 died. In the said accident a bus bearing registration no. BR-2B/2942 was involved. The offending vehicle was insured by the respondent no. 2 i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Though at the time of filing claim petition the claimants had claimed total compensation of Rs. 3,52,000/- the learned Claims Tribunal has directed for payment of Rs. 2,38,388/-. Since in the present case only question involved is as to whether the appellants/claimants were entitled to get interest on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition or in case of non-payment of the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of the order the claimants were entitled to realize the same along with interest at the rate of 08% per annum, the court is of the opinion that there is no requirement to further delve into the facts of the case. 5. Sri Ravindra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of Section 171 of the M.V. Act as well as law laid down by this court as well as Apex Court, it was required for the learned Claims Tribunal to direct the insurer of the vehicle to make payment of the compensation amount along with interest which was to be calculated from the date of filing of the 3 claim petition. In support of his argument Sri Sinha has referred to (1995) 1 SCC 320 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Narendra Pandurang Kadam & Ors.) & A.I.R. 2009 SC 3098 (Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.). He has further submitted that this court has also in number of cases has directed for payment of compensation with interest from the date of filing of the claim petitions. 6. Sri Nirmal Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (insurer of the offending vehicle) has vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellants. It was submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal in its own discretion has rightly directed for payment of compensation amount within two months from the date of the order, failing which, it was directed that interest shall be claimed by the claimants. In support of his argument learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has firstly referred to 2001 (4) PLJR 423 (Pratap Rai Vs Smt. Meera Kumari & Ors.). Similarly, he has referred to 1998 (1) PLJR 55 (Khemawati Mandal Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd., Dhanbad) and also 1997 (1) PLJR 1010 (Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mostt. Chameli Devi & Ors.). It was submitted that this court in Pratap Rai case (Supra) has categorically held that discretion is on a court for directing payment of interest. He further submits that Section 171 of the M.V. Act also makes it clear that it is up to the discretion of the court to grant interest but it has been made clear in the section itself that interest cannot be claimed on the compensation amount 4 from the date prior to the filing of the claim petition but in any event it is the discretion of the court for just decision in the matter. 7. Relying on aforesaid judgments, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 has argued that the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly passed order for payment of the compensation amount within specified period, failing which, interest amount was required to be paid. It was submitted that the order impugned does not require any interference. Sri Nirmal Kumar has further argued that delay in disposal of the claim case has not occurred due to latches on the part of the Insurance Company, and as such, the Insurance Company may not be directed to pay interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 8. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record in the present case. For just decision it would be necessary to quote section 171 of the M.V. Act which is as follows: “Award of interest where any claim is allowed.-Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” The section itself makes it clear that interest on compensation can be directed to be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, no interest can be claimed prior to filing of the claim petition. The question of grant of interest was considered in A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 3098 (Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & 5 Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. ). The Apex Court in the said case has also considered the provisions of the Interest Act, and thereafter, claim of interest from the date of filing of the claim was approved. Similarly the Apex Court in (1995) 1 SCC 320 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Narendra Pandurang Kadam & Ors.) has approved the proposition. A single bench judgment of this court on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the respondent Sri Nirmal Kumar, also makes it clear that interest can be claimed from the date of filing of the claim petition. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to 1997 (1) PLJR 1010 (Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mostt. Chameli Devi & Ors.). Perusal of paragraph no. 5 & 6 of the judgment of this court clearifies the position. For just decision in the matter, it is necessary to quote paragraph no. 5 of Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. case (Supra) which is as follows:- “5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Kumar on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 (the insurers) and having perused the judgment and the order sheet, I am of the opinion that the claimants’ grievance is well founded. The proceedings in the claim case lingered on for four years for no fault on the part of the claimants and, in my opinion, the claimants were entitled to interest at the rate directed by the tribunal from the date of the filling of the claim application. The judgment and order of the tribunal is accordingly modified.” So far Khemawati Mandal case (Supra) is concerned, this court had decided the issue on different fact. 10. The court is of the opinion that since the issue has 6 already been decided by the Apex Court which has been reiterated by this court in 1997 (1) PLJR 1010 (Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mostt. Chameli Devi & Ors.), the court is of the opinion that the learned Claims Tribunal while not allowing interest from the date of filing of the claim petition has committed an error. Accordingly, the impugned judgment requires interference up to that extent and the respondent no. 2 is directed to make payment of interest at the rate of 08% per annum on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim petition. The payment must be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order. 11. With above observation and direction the appeal stands allowed. Praful ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)