High CourtsSingle Bench

Dhanesh Gupta Alias Dhanesh Kumar Gupta vs Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, NH-10, Gangtok, P.O. & P.S. Gangtok, Pin No:737101 & Ors

Sikkim High Court · Decided on 15 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 SIK CK 1624

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 171
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No. 01 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 379 words

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J

1.

Delay condoned.

2.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present review petition is limited to the failure of this Court to consider grant of the interest on the claim of the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act).

3.

It is pointed out that although the learned Tribunal had granted interest @10% per annum on the total sum of Rs.71,20,670/- from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 06.03.2021 till full and final payment the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2025 passed by this Court in appeal does not examine the interest component.

4.

In appeal (at paragraph 44 of the impugned judgment) this Court re-computed "just compensation" to an amount of Rs.27,83,390/- only. These were for expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation, transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenses; loss of earning during the period of treatment; loss of future earning, pain and suffering; loss of amenities; future medical expenses; attendant charges; extra nourishment and miscellaneous expenditure and cost of litigation.

5.

In paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment the calculation of compensation by the learned Tribunal was reflected as Rs.71,20,670/- only which did not include the 10% interest granted.

6.

It therefore appears that although 10% interest had been granted by the learned Tribunal this Court did not notice it. The learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore, right when it is submitted that while computing the total compensation grantable as just compensation this Court did not factor in the interest amount payable under section 171 of the M.V. Act. Since the learned Tribunal had granted 10% interest on the computed amount there is no apparent reason why the petitioner should not be granted the same in appeal.

7.

I am therefore of the view that the present petition would squarely fall within the powers of review available to this Court. I am of the view that there has been a mistake and an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment which needs to be corrected. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted interest @ 10% from the date of making of the claim till actual payment on the amount of Rs.27,83,390/- only. The review petition stands disposed of.