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

1999 Supreme(MP) 29

High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
B. A. KHAN, SHAMBHOO SINGH
BHAYLA - Appellant
Versus
ABDUL KAYUM - Respondents
Misc. Appeal 439 Of 1998
Decided On : 01/12/1999

Advocates Appeared:
ANIL GOEL, RAJPAL SINGH BAGHEL

The discretion of the Tribunal to award interest and the absence of a right for claimants to claim interest from a particular date.

Headnote:

Interest - Motor Accident Claims - The discretion of the Tribunal to award interest and the absence of a right for claimants to claim interest from a particular date

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were awarded compensation with 12% interest from the date of the award by MACT, Barwani. They claimed interest from the date of the claim petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Tribunal has the discretion to award simple interest and that claimants do not have a right to claim interest from a particular date. The court dismissed the appeal as there was no scope to interfere with the Tribunal's decision.

Issues: The issues were whether the appellants were entitled to interest from the date of the claim petition as of right and whether the Tribunal was under an obligation to award interest from that date.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal has the discretion to award interest and that claimants do not have a right to claim interest from a particular date. The matter falls within the discretion of the Tribunal to be exercised judicially.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed on preliminary hearing.

( 1 ) APPELLANTS were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,84,000/- with 12% interest p. a. from the date of award by MACT, Barwani. But they are claiming interest from the date of claim petition. Are they entitled so as of right and was Tribunal under an obligation to award interest from the date of claim petition. In other words it is their right to claim so and is any corresponding duty cast on Tribunal to award so.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS' counsel Mr. Rajpal placed reliance on Section 171 of M. V. Act, 1988 in support. He interpreted this provision to suggest that though Tribunal was out of bounds to award interest prior to claim petition, it was under duty to award interest from the date of claim petition.

( 3 ) THE submission seems based on gross misappreciation of the terms of Section 171 The relevant section is reproduced hereunder and reads thus :-"award of interest where any claim is allowed - Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may 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 it may specify in this behalf. "

( 4 ) A perusal of the provision shows that award of simple interest falls in the discretion of the Tribunal. It may or may not award it. If it does, it again lies in its discretion to award it from a particular date and at a reasonable rate. The Tribunal is not bound to award it in all events and circumstances which is evident from the word "may" occurring in the provision. It is a different matter that it cannot award interest from the date earlier than the date of claim application. But that would not imply that it was bound to award it from the date of claim petition. Nor is any right vested in the claimant to claim it from a particular date. It would all depend on facts and circumstances of the case leading to exercise of sound judicial discretion by the Tribunal. Therefore, it becomes fallacious to contend that Appellants had a right to claim it from the date of claim petition or Tribunal was bound to award it from that date. The correct position in law is that interest cannot be claimed by the claimants in motor accident claims as of right from a particular date and that the Tribunal is under no obligation to award it from the desired date. The matter falls in the discretion of Tribunal to be exercised judicially in accordance with recognised principles.

( 5 ) APPELLANTS' counsel was not able to advance any ground or reason to show that Tribunal's direction suffered from any infirmity. Nor was it otherwise canvassed that the matter merited award of interest from the date of claim application. As such we find no scope to interfere. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed on preliminary hearing. Appeal dismissed.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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