ORAL JUDGMENT:- These three First Appeals can be disposed of by common judgment, since identical question of law and facts are involved.

2. All the appellants had instituted applications under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Akola. All the applicants claimed compensation on account of death of their kith and kin. The learned Judge of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed awards in all the petitions. While passing the said award, the learned Judge of the Tribunal, however, awarded 12% interest from date of award till realisation of the amount. Being aggrieved by that order of award of interest from date of award and not from date of application, these first appeals have been preferred.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

4. The only point which arises for my consideration is –

Point Findings

Whether the learned Member of the Tribunal had

Properly exercised the discretion vested in him in

awarding the interest from date of award? No.

5. The learned Member of the Tribunal has awarded 12% P.A. interest from date of award. It is not disputed that in all three matters the amount of award was deposited in the Court immediately on passing of the award. The only question that needs consideration is whether the interest should, have been awarded from date of the application. While awarding interest from date of award, the learned Member did not give any reasons why he is not awarding interest from date of the application. There is no doubt that section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not mandate awarding interest from date of application as the word used in section is may. This means that judicial discretion is left to the Tribunal. However, every discretion has to be used judiciously. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the discretion has been used by the judgment and this Court should not interfere with it. The learned counsel relied, on two decisions, one; reported in AIR 2004 SC 1581, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur and others; in 1992(2) MPU 54 = AIR 1999 M.P. 90, Bhayla and anr. vs. Abdul Kayum and ors. The Supreme Court in National Insurance Company case has observed as follows

"14. Though section 1l0-CC of the Act (corresponding to section 171 of the New Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. 9nce the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on, the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope, for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from section ll0-CC of the Act or section 171 of the New Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore, directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal."

The Supreme Court, no doubt, holds that section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act confers discretion. In the reported case what had happened is that the Tribunal awarded interest at 12% P.A. on the amount of Award but further directed that if amount is not paid within 60 days it would carry interest at 18%. This order, the Supreme Court has held, was not proper in view of the fact that the discret

Click Here to Read the rest of this document