S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THE reference to this bench has been made in a peculiar situation although no question of any importance arises for consideration in this appeal.

( 2 ) ONE Rajanna died on 22. 2. 1983 in a road accident that took place on 19. 2. 83. The said accident allegedly took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 4. The vehicle was owned by A. P. State Road Trans. Corpn. An application under section 110-B of the motor Vehicles Act was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 towards compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal upon consideration of the material on record awarded a sum of Rs. 57,000 with 6 per cent interest up to the date of realization.

( 3 ) ON appeal preferred there against by the respondent herein, a learned single judge of this court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 3,15,600 and in place of 6 per cent, the learned Judge awarded 12 per cent interest per annum. When this l. P. A. came up before a Division Bench of this court (N. Y. Hanumanthappa and vaman Rao, JJ.), having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in General manager, Kerala State Road Transport corpn. v. Susamma Thomas, 1994 ACJ 1 (SC), on facts it was recorded:"the learned single Judge by following the authoritative pronouncement made by the Apex Court in General Manager, kerala State Road Trans. Corpn. v. Susamma Thomas (supra) doubled the earning of the deceased and fixed the same at Rs. 1,400 after deducting one- third of the earning for the personal use of the deceased. Thus by applying multiplier of 17 the learned Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 3,15,000. Now the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the said decision arrived at by the learned single Judge is wrong and in support of his submissions he wanted to rely on some judgments. On facts, on hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the learned single Judge is based on cogent and documentary evidence available on record. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding. But the learned counsel submits that he has a good case for making his submissions for allowing the appeal with which we are not convinced. "

( 4 ) THE learned Judges curiously posted the case for hearing before any other bench.

( 5 ) YET again, another Division Bench by order dated 27. 12. 2000 having noticed the aforementioned observations made by the other Division Bench, opined: "since the Division Bench recorded findings on facts and law, it may not be appropriate for this Bench to again hear the matter because this Bench may come to contrary conclusions and, therefore, there is possibility of having two different findings of two different Benches on questions involved in this case factually and legally. Therefore, it will be appro- priate if this matter is heard by a Bench of three Judges. Let this matter be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice for constitution of the appropriate Bench. "

( 6 ) THIS is how the matter has been placed before this Full Bench by an ad- ministrative order of the Chief Justice.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the court can take notice of the fact that the deceased who was a worker in Singareni collieries worked for 15 days only in a month. We fail to understand as to how it can take judicial notice of such fact.

( 8 ) THE learned counsel would contend that having regard to the decision of the apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New india Assurance Co. LM. /2000 ACJ 428 (SC), the rate of interest could not have exceeded 9 per cent. In the said decision, as regards the rate of interest, it was observed: ". . . Section 171 of the M. V. Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf. Earlier 12 per cent was found to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document