FA/296/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 296 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED ============================================================================ 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ===================================================== THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED - Appellant(s) Versus BHARATIBEN RAMESHBHAI PATEL & 6 - Defendant(s) ===================================================== Appearance : MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI for Appellant(s) : 1, MR HITESH N ACHARYA for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 6, MR NP CHAUDHARY for Defendant(s) : 7, MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY for Defendant(s) : 7, ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 05/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/296/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED) 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati for the Appellant and Mr. Hitesh N. Acharya for the respondents. 2. This First Appeal is preferred by the appellant -Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur, on 20.7.2007 in MAC Petition No. 231/1993. 3. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company has contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, facts and weight of evidence on record. It is also contended by Mr. Nanavati that Tribunal has not properly interpreted the contents of panchnama of scene of offence Ex. 27 and the accident marks in the panchnama found at 6 ½ feet off the road, meaning thereby, the collision between the vehicles took place in the middle of the road, yet, the Tribunal has not considered the said issue. It is proved and established by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal that scooterist was totally negligent and was driving his scooter in a rash and negligent manner, and therefore, he was fully liable for the said accident. It is also contended by Mr. Nanavati that the Tribunal has not considered the income of the deceased in a proper way and manner. The deceased was working as a managerial capacity FA/296/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT for the sole business of agricultural, cattle and dairy products. It is also argued by Mr. Nanavati that in light of the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal has not considered the rate of interest properly. He has also contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded rate of interest as 7.5% instead of 9.00% because the rate of interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time. Mr. Nanavati has submitted that the respondents are not entitled to get any compensatory amount from the Insurance Company. 4. We have gone through the contentions raised by Mr.Vibhuti Nanavati learned advocate appearing for the appellant and Mr. Hitesh N Acharya learned advocate appearing for the ori. Claimants – respondents. It is true that original claimants have also preferred an appeal for enhancement of quantum of compensation awarded to them, whereas, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. We have perused the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by both the sides before the Tribunal. We have not found any error committed by the Tribunal while passing the award. It appears that the income of the deceased is properly considered. It also appears that the amount which is awarded to the present respondents – original claimants is just, proper, legal and reasonable. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati learned FA/296/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT advocate appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company. Mr. Nanavati has submitted that the rate of interest may be reduced as the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. In the case of Dharampal & Ors vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in 2008(7) SCALE 360, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that “rate of interest would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the award of interest would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time.” In light of the above decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the opinion that the rate of interest which is awarded as 9.00% by the Tribunal, is required to be reduced to the extent of 7.5% considering the current bank rate and rest of the award is required to be confirmed. 5. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. The rate of interest 9.00% awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award dated 20.7.2007 in MAC Petition No. 231/1993, is hereby reduced to the extent of 7.5%. Rest of the judgment and award dated 20.7.2007 passed in MAC Petition No. 231/1993 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Fast Track Court No. 5, Palanpur, is hereby confirmed. (J.R. VORA, J.) (Z.K. SAIYED, J.) mandora/