IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CM No.6656 and 6657 CII of 2009 and FAO No.296 of 2001 Date of decision: 17.4.2009 Parveen Kumari and others -----Appellants Vs. Daya Ram and another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL Present:- Mr. Sarju Puri, Advocate for the appellants. ORDER: 1. Heard. 2. Application has been filed with a delay of 229 days for restoration of the appeal, which was dismissed in default. Only ground mentioned in the application is that the case was missed by the counsel from the list. 3. Without going into the veracity or otherwise of the averments put forward by counsel for the appellants, I consider it appropriate to hear him on merits. Order dated July 4, 2007 will stand recalled. FAO No.296 of 2001 (O&M) 4. Appeal arises out of order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.4,51,600/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of realization. The claim for compensation was made with the averment that on 10.12.1997 at 7.45 PM, deceased Sarbpal Singh was going to his house from Panchkula. He was hit by driver of scooter No.CH-01-U- 2759. He was taken to hospital where he died on 24.12.1997. Accident took place by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal accepted the plea of rash and negligent driving. As regards quantum of compensation, it was held that though income tax return Ex.P2 for the year 1996-97 was produced declaring total income of Rs.42,800/- from business and Rs.20,000/- from agriculture but no proof was produced to show owning of agricultural land. Income was, thus, taken as Rs.42000/- per annum and after excluding personal expenses of Rs.1200/- per month and by applying multiplier of 16, compensation of Rs.4,31,600/- was held to be payable in addition to Rs.20,000/- for medical expenses. 2 FAO No.296 of 2001 (O&M) 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two points:- (i) The claimants could not produce evidence with regard to ownership of agricultural land though such evidence was available and could now be produced as additional evidence; (ii) Interest has been awarded from the date of award only and not from the date of application i.e. 18.2.1998, resulting in loss of interest for about two and a half years. 6. As regards (i), there is no justification for additional evidence being allowed at this stage when no valid reason has been shown as to why such evidence could not be produced during the trial of the case. There is, thus, no ground to interfere with the finding of income of the deceased. 7. As regards (ii), the reason given for not awarding interest from the date of application, mentioned in para 17 of the award, is that the claimants delayed recording of evidence by 18 months. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that 3 FAO No.296 of 2001 (O&M) the delay could not be attributed to the claimants, as in the period of 18 months, six witnesses were examined in six opportunities and time was bound to be taken. The fact remains that the claimants were deprived of the use of compensation, which was held to be due and payable. 8. I find merit in this submission. Though, normally, notice may have been required to be issued to the National Insurance Company but the relief claimed being small, this prayer is allowed and interest is directed to be calculated from the date of application to the date of payment, at the rate of 9% per annum. If the Insurance Company is aggrieved by this part of the order, it will be at liberty to move this Court. 9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. April 17, 2009 (Adarsh Kumar Goel) ‘gs’ Judge 4