IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.200 of 2007 1. SMT.NAGMANTI DEVI @ NAGWANTI DEVI , W/O KRISHNADEO NARAIN SINGH 2. RAJENDRA NARAYAN SINGH 3. SURENDRA NARAYAN SINGH @ BUDHADEO NARAYAN SINGH BOTH ARE SONS OF KRISHNADEO NARAYAN SIGH. 4. RAJIV NARAYAN SINGH, MINOR UNDER GUARDIANDHIP OF KRISHNADEO NARAYAN SINGH 5. NILIMA KUMARI,MINOR D/O KRISHNADEO NARAYAN SINGH UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF KRISHNADEO NARAIN SINGH ALL ARE RESIDENT OF MOHALLA BENGALI TOLA, P.S. RAJGIR, DISTRICT NALAND (SR. NO. 1 TO 5 ABOVE WERE CLAIMANTS NO. 1 TO 5 RESPECTIVELY IN COURT BELOW. .............PETITIONER-APPELLANTS. Versus 1 LAL BIHARI SAO, S/O DEO CHARAN SAO (TRUCK DRIVER) OF MOHALLA KANKARBAGH, P.S. KANKARBAGH DISTRICT PATNA 2. DURGA PRASAD YADAV, S/O LATE RAGHAV PD. YADAV OF VILLAGE MALAKI, MOHALLA , P.S. ARRAH , DISTRICT BHOJPUR 3. THE ORIENTAL FIRE AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO. EXHIBITION ROAD, PATNA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE MANGER, PATNA.(AT PRESENT REGIONAL OFFICE, PIRMUHANI, PATNA) (SR. NO. 1 TO 3 HEREINABOVE WERE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1 TO 3 RESPECTIVELY IN COURT BELOW) ......OPPOSITE PARTIES-RESPONDENTS. FOR THE APPELLANTS:- Mr. Bikram Singh, Advocate Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Avanish Nandan, Advocate. FOR THE INSURANCE:- Mr. Ashok Priyadarsi, Advocate -------------- 12. 08.07.2010 Heard learned counsels representing all the parties and with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The appellants were the claimants (original or substituted) before the court below, claiming death compensation of one Jitendra Narayan Singh @ Sanjay, son of appellant no. 1 and 2 brother of rest of the appellants. Admittedly, deceased died on 25.01.1982 in an accident, wherein truck bearing no. BRC 5733 was involved. It is undisputed that vehicle, in question was under valid insurance and the insurer was respondent no. 3 all other facts are undisputed. Since, at the time of accident old Motor Vehicle Act of the year 1939 was in operation. It is undisputed position that maximum limit of coverage of insurance in view of Section 95 of Act was Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand). The relevant portion of Section 95 of the Act as prevailing on the date of accident, reads as such:- 95. Requirements of policies and limits of liability- (1) ( x x x x x x) (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-Section (1), a policy of insurance shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any one accident up to the following limits, namely:- (a) ( x x x x x x ) (b) Where the vehicle is a vehicle in which passengers are carried for hire or reward or by reason of or in pursuance of a contract of employment:- (i) in respect of persons other than passengers carried for hire or reward, a limit of fifty thousand rupees in all; (ii) in respect of passengers a limit of fifteen thousand rupees for each individual passenger; (c) ( x x x x x x ) 3 (d) ( x x x x x x) (3) ( x x x x x x) (4) ( x x x x x x) (5) ( x x x x x x) The claims Tribunal took almost twenty five years in arriving at final conclusion and decide the case and here also in the appeal more than three years have already elapsed on one or the other count. After some arguments, members of the Bar taking into consideration the legal provision are in agreement that amount of award Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) was just and proper but there was difference amongst them as regard to payment of interest to the claimant which has been denied by the court below. My attention was drawn towards different paragraph of the judgment of the court below, explaining that delay was caused due to some latches on the part of claimant, so no interest would have been paid and as submitted by insurer respondent rightly denied by the court below. Whereas on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that initially original claimant no. 2, that is father of the deceased died and there was some sort of delay due to death of only male claimant and pairvikar of the case, but thereafter, evidence was adduced, no doubt, on some intervals but case was subsequently dismissed thrice for non prosecution which could not have been under law and also some time was consumed in obtaining the insurance certificate which could not be produced by the contesting opposite party, the insurer, so taking 4 into consideration, the relevant law termed beneficiary legislation the sufferer must have not been deprived of interest. Taking into consideration all such aspects, appellant no. 1, being mother of the deceased and solitary person entitled, to be compensated against death of her son, the deceased in this case, as rightly held and directed by the court below seems entitled for interest on the amount awarded by the court below, which has been denied to her. She is entitled for the interest at the rate of 6% (six percent) per annum from the date of application till its realization. The insurer, respondent no. 3 is hereby directed to make payment of entire amount so awarded to her with interest at the rate of 6% (six percent) per annum, preferably within three months. The amount if any paid against award shall be deducted from total money with interest. With the above modification and direction, this appeal stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. Praveen ( Akhilesh Chandra, J.)