The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rate of interest to be awarded in motor accidents claims should be determined based on the rate offered by nationalized banks on fixed deposits for one year, subject to special facts or circumstances of the case.

( 1 ) THIS matter is placed before me as per the order of the Hon'ble chief justice, under Section 98 (2) of Code of Civil Procedure, in view of difference of opinion on a point of law (regarding interest to be awarded in motor accidents claims) between two learned judges of a division bench of this court, who heard the appeal. The differing views of the two learned judges are reported in Sanjeevini Ananda Awate V. Managing Director, Hiranyakeshi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane, ILR 2000 kar 4860.

( 2 ) THIS appeal is by the claimants in m. v. c. No. 15 of 1989, on the file of m. a. c. t. iii, belgaum. The claimants were respectively widow, father, mother and two minor children of one ananda awate, who died on 7. 1. 1989, as a result of injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on 31. 12. 88. The tribunal by judgment and award dated 16. 9. 1991, allowed the said claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs. 76,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realization. In this appeal, filed by the claimants, the division bench by judgment/order dated 26. 9. 2000, has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,20,000. Both the judges have concurred in regard to the quantum of compensation, but have differed in regard to the rate of interest to be awarded on the amount of compensation. Tilhari, j. , was of the view that the interest should be awarded at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till date of realization or deposit. Vallinaayagam, j. Was of the view that the interest should be only at the rate of 6 per cent per annum.

( 3 ) IN view of said difference of opinion on the point of law, the learned judges were of the view that the matter be placed before a full bench. However, there was no concurrence even in regard to the questions that should be referred to the full bench. Tilhari, j. Wanted to refer the following six questions of law for opinion: (1) whether in the context of general trend of decisions of their lordships of the apex court referred to in the judgment of one of us in detail and the galloping inflation and erosion of the value of the rupee as well as in view of the Provisions of law of interest, viz. , interest Act, 1978 particularly sections 2 (a), 2 (b) and sections 3 and 4 of the interest act taking guidance therefrom about the rate of interest the award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum can be said and held to be unsatisfactory and too low as held by the division benches of this court and as held in the case of Dr. (mrs.) K. R. Tondon V. Om Prakash, 1999 ACJ 1299 (sc), and whether award of interest at 9 per cent per annum or more can be said to be justified? (2) whether the Provisions of Section 2 (a) of the interest Act, 1978 can be held to be applicable to the cases under motor accidents claims for award of compensation with respect to the award of interest and any guidance to be taken therefrom? If yes, its effect? (3) whether the use of the expression 'damages' in Section 3 or 4 of the interest Act, 1978 and the use of expression 'compensation' or 'amount of compensation' made in Motor Vehicles Act does make any material difference so far as the question of applicability of interest Act, 1978 is concerned? (4) whether the expression 'compensation' or 'amount of compensation' used in the Motor Vehicles Act in the context of dispute and determination of award of 'amount of compensation' is synonymous to the expression 'damages in the case of torts' or it is something different than 'damages in torts' and whether it means something as damages in torts or in the sense expression damages has been used in Section 3 of the interest Act, 1978, in the context of the Provisions of Section 3 (1) (2) (b) of interest Act, 1978? If yes, its effect? (5) which of the two sets of division bench decisions referred to above, viz. , one in dm. Gayatri V. Divisional controller, Karnataka state road trans. Corpn. , 1999 ACJ 147