PRAKRAMCHAND Vs. CHUTTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this appeal came for hearing before one of us (S.K. Dubey, J.), sitting singly, and it was heard at some length by him, he took the view that the interpretation of S. 110-CC, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the 'Act', in the context of O.41, R.33, CPC by another learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. Indore v. Kamla Bai, 1990 MPJR 140, hereinafter referred to as Kamlabai's case was required to be examined by Larger Bench. Indeed, according to him, the view expressed in the decision cited, conflicted directly with this Court's decision in Manjula Devi Bhuta v. Manjushri Raha, 1968 Jab LJ 189 and otherwise also, the question was a general importance to decide whether in appeal, the Court had power, jurisdiction or duty to award interest at a higher rate in the absence of cross-objection in that regard by the claimant.

(2.) Twin provisions, above-referred, are extracted in the extenso: Section 110-CC, M.V. Act :

(3.) On facts, it is not disputed that in this matter, there is no cross-objection. Admittedly also, the award impugned in the appeal, passed by the M.A.C.T., Shivpuri, interest has been awarded at the rate of 6% per annum and that is made payable from the date of award. Therefore, it is necessary to examine first afore-cited Kamlabai's case (supra). The question of enhancement of interest was raised by the claimant/respondent in the appeal preferred by Insurer, assailing his liability under the award. The appeal was dismissed and, at the same time, claim for enhanced interest too was negated. There is not discussion on the import, purport or scope of S. 110-CC of the Act and the decision is based squarely on O.41, R. 33, CPC, relying on a Bench decision of this Court in Sumanbai's case, AIR 1982 Madh Pra 62 as also in Rukmani Devi's case, 1984 Acc CJ 548. We reproduce, however, the extract which the learned Judge made from Sumanbai's case :