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

2008 Supreme(SC) 847

2008(4) Supreme 348
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Uttarakhand High Court)
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
Dharampal & Ors. — Appellants
versus
U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. of 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 12917 of 2007)
Decided on : 12-05-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
Rate at which the interest is to be awarded would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time.

Headnote:(a) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 171 – Provisions require payment of interest in addition to compensation already determined – Provision of payment of interest is discretionary and is not and cannot be bound by rules. (Para 9)

        (2004) 2 SCC 370: 2004(1) Supreme 749 – Relied upon.

        (b) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 171 – Rate of interest – interest is payable on the equitable grounds to the aggrieved person who is deprived of using the money which is due and payable to him – Rate at which the interest is to be awarded would normally depend upon the bank rate prevailing at the relevant time – Rate of interest enhanced to 7.5%. (Paras 11 and 14)

        (2001) 2 SCC 9: 2001(1) Supreme 5; (2002) 6 SCC 281: 2002(4) Supreme 518; (2003) 3 SCC 148: 2003(2) Supreme 178; (2005) 6 SCC 236: 2005(4) Supreme 87 – Relied upon.

       Facts of the case :

        1. Deceased, Pradeep Kumar was driving a motorcycle along with his wife, two minor daughters and a minor son. The motor cycle was hit by a rashly and negligently driven Bus of the UP State Road Transport Corporation. All the five persons traveling on the motorcycle died on the spot due to the aforesaid accident.

        2. Age of the deceased Pradeep Kumar was 28 years and as per appellants he was earning an amount of Rs.4,200/- per month. The appellants filed a petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal.

        3. The Tribunal passed awarded Rs.3,50,100/- as compensation to the appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

        4. The appellants preferred an appeal being in the High Court challenging the amount of compensation as also the rate of interest. The respondent - UP State Road Transport Corporation also filed an appeal. Both these appeals were taken up for consideration together. The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent - UP State Road Transport Corporation whereas the appeal filed by the appellants was allowed enhancing the compensation and maintaining the rate of interest.

       Findings of the Court :

        While compensation does not require any interference, interest rate should be modified.

       Result : Interest rate enhanced to 7.5%.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal revolves around a very short issue, namely, the quantum of interest to be awarded on the compensation awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased who died in an accident. Before we deal with the issue that arises for our consideration, we will deal with the factual matrix out of which the aforesaid issue arises.

3. Deceased, Pradeep Kumar was driving a motorcycle along with his wife, two minor daughters and a minor son. When they reached village Dadiaki on the Muzaffarnagar - Roorkee Road, Bus No. UP15L 7640, allegedly driving at a very high speed, rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle. All the five persons traveling on the motorcycle died on the spot due to the aforesaid accident. The driver of the bus fled away from the place of occurrence immediately after the accident, leaving behind the bus. The age of the deceased Pradeep Kumar was 28 years and as per appellants he was earning an amount of Rs.4,200/- per month. The appellants filed a petition No.202 of 2004 before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Udham Singh Nagar, Rudrapur. Several witnesses were examined. On perusal of the evidence on record the Tribunal passed a judgment and awarded Rs.3,50,100/- as compensation to the appellants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. The Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence held that the deceased was earning Rs.2,400/- per month and not Rs.4,200/- as claimed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal the appellants preferred an appeal being Appeal No.102 of 2007 in the High Court of Uttrakhand at Nainital contending inter alia that it was clearly proved that the deceased was doing a work of mason and was earning Rs.4,200/- and the Tribunal erred in determining the income of the deceased on the presumption that the job of the mason is not available everyday. Challenge was made in the said appeal also in respect of the interest awarded contending inter alia that the rate of interest was on the lower side and the Tribunal should have awarded higher rate of interest.

4. The respondent - UP State Road Transport Corporation also filed an appeal which was registered as Appeal No.386 of 2005. Both the aforesaid appeals were taken up for consideration together as the issues that arose for consideration were similar. The Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court considered the evidence on record and dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent - UP State Road Transport Corporation whereas the appeal filed by the appellants was allowed to the extent that the appellants were held to be entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,70,000/- instead Rs.3,51,100/- as awarded by the Tribunal for the death of Pradeep Kumar. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the High Court also maintained the interest at 6 % p.a. which was awarded by the Tribunal holding that the said rate of interest does not require any interference. The High Court directed the State Road Transport Corporation to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within two months with interest, with the Tribunal.

5. The appeal is now filed by the appellants in this Court in respect of the quantum of compensation awarded as also in respect of the rate of interest which was awarded by the Tribunal as also by the High Court.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, at the time of arguments fairly stated before us that he would advance his arguments only in respect of the interest and would not like to press for the enhancement of quantum of compensation in terms of the prayers made in the memorandum of appeal.

7. Accordingly, we heard the learned counsel for the appellants only in respect of the issue of enhancement of rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal and also by the High Court, which is awarded and maintained as 6% per annum. Counsel for the appellants submitted before us that there are ample











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 Back to top