9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts were held to be entitled to get a sum of ₹ 3,70,000/- instead ₹ 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is court has held that the provisions require payment of interest in addition to compensation already determined. Even though the expression may is used, a duty is laid on the Tribunal to consider the question of interest separately with due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was clearly held in the said decision that the provision of payment of interest is discretionary and is not and cannot be bound by rules. 10. Interest is compensation for forbearance or detention of money, which ought to have been paid to the claimant. No rate of interest is fixed under section 171 of the Act and the duty has been bestowed upon the court to determine such rate of interest. In order to determine such rate we may refer to the obse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 281 this Court held that the 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. Following the observations made in the case of Kaushnuma Begaum (supra) interest @ 9 % was awarded in this case also. It was held as follows :- In our view the reason indicated in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (supra) is a valid reason and it may be noticed that the rate of interest is already on the decline. We therefore, reduce the rate of interest to 9% in place of 12% as awarded by the High Court. 12. In the year 2003 in the case of Abati Bezbaruah v. Dy. Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
