SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(SC) 1145

D.P.MOHAPATRA, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Devi Dayal Kansal – Appellant
Versus
Raj Roop – Respondent


S.B.Majmudar, J. , D.P.Mohapatra, J.

(1) -LEAVE granted.

(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.

(3) THE short question is whether the appellants-claimants who are dependants of the deceased who died on account of motor accident, should be awarded interest on the enhanced amount granted by the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 who is the only contesting respondent submitted that it was a discretionary order. We cannot agree to that submission. Respondent No. 1 who is the driver has not thought it fit to contest the proceedings and has remained served. In our view, once the High Court has thought it fit to enhance in appeal compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased, in fairness, interest should have been granted on the enhanced compensation unless there was any cogent reason for denying them the benefit which does not exist in the facts of the present case and the High Court has also not noted the same. Only on this short ground, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent that enhanced compensation granted by the High Court will bear interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top