NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. RAJKUMAR DHARAMSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Parth Tolia, learned advocate for the respondent No.4. Having regard to the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant, the court is of the view that the matter requires consideration, hence, admit.

(2.) CONSIDERING the scope of the appeal, which is very limited, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Parth Tolia, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Kanwar (supra) has awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum and as such, the Tribunal was wholly justified in following the said decision and awarding interest at such rate. According to the learned advocate, even otherwise, the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum is too much on the lower side. The attention of the court was invited to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. Manickam v. Metropolitan Transport Corporation Limited, 2013 ACJ 1935, wherein the court had, in relation to an award which was made in the year 2000, awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Neerupam Mohan Mathur v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2122, wherein the award of the Tribunal was made in the year 1987 and the Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jiju Kuruvila and others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and others, 2013 ACJ 2141, wherein the court had awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum in a case where the accident had taken place in the year 1990. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Josphine James v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2013 ACJ 2418, wherein the Supreme Court by following its earlier decision in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, 2012 ACJ 48 (SC), awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellant therein. The court held that there was no justification in not applying the ratio of the said decision to the facts and circumstances of the said case and accordingly awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others, 2013 ACJ 2594, wherein relying upon the above decision in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, the Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The decision in the case of Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others, 2013 ACJ 2544, was cited wherein once again the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (supra) and held that the insurance company shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum. It was submitted that thus, the Supreme Court in the said decisions has awarded interest ranging between 9% to 12% per annum and hence, the contention of the appellant that interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum ought to have been awarded does not merit acceptance and that the interest of 12% per annum as determined by the Tribunal is just, legal and proper.