MEENA DEVI Vs. RAMESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE points for consideration in this appeal are - (1) Whether Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) was justified in allowing deduction on account of lump sum payment of compensation ? (2) Whether the Tribunal was justified in not awarding interest on the awarded amount from the date of petition till realisation ? (3) Whether the liability of the Insurance Company was limited ? (4) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and proper ?

(2.) IN order to answer these questions, we may have glance to the relevant facts which are necessary for the determination of these questions. The deceased Ram Gopal aged 35 years was going on his cycle on 25th March, 1980 at 8.40 p.m. when a truck bearing No. RRK-2964 came in a fast speed driven rashly and negligently by its Driver hit the cycle driven by Ram Gopal. Deceased Ram Gopal suffered injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same. He was Halvai by profession. His monthly income was Rs. 600/- from this business. Deceased Ram Gopal left behind his widow, minor daughter and four minor sons. Having lost the bread earner of the family, the legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act (in short the Act) claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/-. By the impugned award the Tribunal worked out the dependency loss at Rs. 57,600/- and then ordered deduction at the rate of 15% on account of lump sum payment. Thus awarded a sum of Rs. 48,960/-. The Tribunal also held that liability of the Insurance Company, as per the policy, was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/-.

(3.) NOW turning to the question of non-granting of interest, I am in full agreement with the contention of Mrs. Manjit Chawla, counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal erred in not awarding interest on the amount of compensation from the date of petition till realisation. No reasons have been assigned by the Tribunal as to why interest from the date of petition till realisation could not be awarded. In fact perusal of the record show that there was no delay on the part of the appellant in pursuing their petition. This Court in the following cases Nirmal Singh and another v. C.M. Jaya and others, 1997 ACJ page 44, Bimla Devi and another v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, 1995 ACJ Vol II 789 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harjeet Kaur and others, 1996 ACJ Vol. II 687 held that if there is no fault of the claimants or there was no delay attributable to them and the Tribunal having not given any reason for non-granting of interest from the date of petition then such an award requires interference. Accordingly, the award in this regard is modified. The appellant would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of petition till realisation.