Pratima Kumari alias Pratira Singh and Others vs United India insurance Company Ltd. and Others

P.K. Deb, J.—This Civil revision petition has been directed against an order dated 4.12.1998 passed by the Additional District Judge VIII, Patna, cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Misc. Case No. 15 of 1998.

The Petitioners were the claimants in Claim Case No. 27 of 1988. The husband of the Petitioner No. 1, who was a Govt. servant died on 2.11.1987 in a Motor accident while he was travelling to Katihar by his Maruti Van. The said claim case was adjudicated by Smt. Rekha Kumari, the then Additional District Judge VIII, Patna, and awarded compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/ - with interest at the rate of 10% per annum thereon till the date of realisation. In the operative part of the order although the interest was included as mentioned above but the date from which the interest is to be paid has not been specifically mentioned. On the basis of the claims, a certificate was issued by the then Addl. District Judge, VIII, Patna to the Certificate Officer, Patna for realisation of the awarded amount together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable from the date of filing of the claim case till realisation. After expiry of the claim period, the Insurance Company filed M.A. No. 477 of 1996. The claimants did not file any appeal and they were satisfied with the awarded amount, as according to them because of financial constraint no appeal would be preferred Against the issuance of the certificate to the Certificate Officer, a writ petition was filed before this Court suppressing the facts that the appeal was still pending filed by the Insurance Company. Ultimately the writ petition was dismissed. On the basis of the Certificate issued Misc. Certificate Case No. 32 of 1997-98 was registered and processes were initiated by the Certificate Officer for realisation of a sum of Rs. 7,57,370.79 (p). After disposal of the writ petition, the Insurance Company issued cheques in favour of the Tribunal for payment to the claimant but a prayer was made not to issue the three cheques as they have got objection regarding interest portion. It was stated that when the judgment is silent regarding calculation of interest then the same should be construed as granting of interest from the date of judgment till the date of realisation. The same has been objected from the side of the claimant. By the impugned order after considering the operative part of the initial judgment in the claim case the court below held that it should be construed as interest from the date of judgment till the realisation.

It is the contention of the Petitioner that the learned court below has committed error of law in interpreting the judgment of the Tribunal. Usually the interest is being awarded along with the awarded amount from the date of filing of the claim case unless specifically it is written for some reasons interest should be calculated from the date of judgment. Various judgments of the Apex Court have been referred from the side of the claimant, such as in the case of Smt. Chameli Wati and Another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others, the case of Hardeo Kaur and others Vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation and another, and in all those cases it was ordered by the Apex Court that the interest should be calculated as usual from the date of filing of the claim case. One decision of a Division Bench of Patna High Court is there as reported in the case of Om Prakash Dalmia Vs. Smt. Bina Saha and Others, where also the award of interest was challenged and it was held by the Division Bench that the interest should be paid by the Tribunal not earlier than the date of making of the claim on interpretation of Section 110CC of the Old M.V. Act. The claimants are entitled to get an award from the date of death their predecessor in interest as per M.V. Act and it has been specified by the Act itself in granting such award the Tribunal should give interest also. Right to claim interest accrued on the death but generally the interest is not being awarded from the date of death as the award depends upon filing of the claim case. In general money suit also interest is being granted pendente lite. Then there is no reason that in the claim the interest should not be granted from the date of filling of the claim case, only because the operative part of the award is silent about the date from which the interest is to be calculated. It should be construed as a general rule as has been granted of course unless there is specific reasons as to interest is to be calculated from the date of judgment. Moreover, in the present case it appears that the Tribunal itself has issued certificate to the Certificate Officer by inclusion of interest from the date of filing of the claim case till the realisation. Now there is no scope from going back by the Tribunal itself from the position. In the case of Brij Mohan Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, the High Court held that power to award interest on the amount of compensation is discretionary and normal rule is to grant interest from the date of claim application. There is no ground for deviation. Normally unless the same is specified in the judgment itself, for and on behalf of the opp. parties one judgment of the Apex Court has been referred as reported in the case of Indrani Raja Durai and Others Vs. Madras Motor and General Insurance Company and Others, wherein the Apex Court has directed the Insurance Company to pay interest from the date of judgment of the Tribunal. Factual aspect of that case stands on different footing. In that case there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also and as such the award of compensation was minimised and deduction was made due to negligence and because of such apportionment the interest was asked to be paid from the date of judgment of the Tribunal. That was deviation from the normal rule because of the peculiar situation in that case. On going through the decisions of the different High Courts and the Apex Court I also found that normal rule is to grant interest u/s 110CC of old Act from the date of claim application and in the present case although initial date has been mentioned in the judgment only normal rule would follow. Learned Tribunal should not have interpreted the judgment otherwise when the Tribunal itself has issued certificate for claiming interest from the date of filing of the claim case. After interpreting the judgment of the Tribunal thus I find that the learned court below committed error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction in interpreting the judgment deviating from the normal rule.

Thus, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.