(1.) THIS miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.4.97 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal (1st Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur), in claim case no. 75/93. The appellant before this court is the National Insurance Company, who was opposite party no. 6 of the claim case.
(2.) IT was submitted by the appellant 'slawyer that the deceased was travelling in a Govt. Jeep which was occupied by some officers of the concerned department, in which the deceased was serving. There was contributory negligence of the Jeep driver as well, but the Tribunal fixed the liability of payment upon the Insurance Company of the Mini Bus which collided with the jeep, in question causing the death of the deceased, whose wife, sons and daughters filed the aforesaid claim case. The appellant should not have been fastened with the sole liability of paying compensation amount. Moreover, the Tribunal used the multiplier of 15 as provided by schedule II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1994. This Act was not made retrospective and, therefore, the Tribunal should not have used the multiplier provided under the Act, since the accident took place in the year 1993 to which M.V. Act, 1988 shall be applicable.
(3.) WAS the driver of the concerned Jeep and A.W. 3 was another occupant of the jeep. Both the witnesses said that the jeep, in question, was stopped at the speed -breaker near the P.O. which was a bridge. The mini bus came from the opposite direction and dashed against the jeep causing injuries to some occupants of the vehicle and death of Niwaran Tiwary. The Tribunal, therefore, held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the jeep driver and the accident occurred mainly on account of the negligence on the part of the bus driver. The owner and driver of none of the vehicles contested the case. The appellant (Insurance Company) had admitted the insurance of the concerned mini bus. It was not established that the bus driver was driving the vehicle without valid licence. In the aforesaid circumstance, the Tribunal fixed liability of paying compensation amount upon the appellant. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on facts on record, I do not think the appellant can be absolved from its liability to pay the compensation amount. Now, the question is what amount has to be paid to the claimants. In this connection, it was submitted by the appellant 'slawyer that the Tribunal besides applying the multiplier system and using the multiplier as provided in schedule II of the M.V. Act, 1994, granted penal interest at the rate of 18% if the amount of compensation was not paid within two months of the date of the order of the court. There was no provision for penal interest in the M.V. Act. Appellant 'slawyer further submitted that interest at the rate of 12% should not also have been granted because now the interest rate fixed by the Reserve Bank of India has been reduced from 12 to 9%.