1999 JTR(SC) 1145
2002 ACJ 338 ; 2000 10 SCC 314 ; 2000 KHC 4277
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Mohapatra : S.B.Majmudar
Devi Dayal Kansal
Versus
Raj Roop
Case No. : 5668 of 1999
Date of Decision : 10/1/99
When an appellate court enhances compensation for dependants in a motor accident claim, interest should be granted on the enhanced amount as a matter of fairness, unless there is a cogent reason to deny it.
Act
Referred
:MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
: S.171
(A) Motor accident claim - Enhanced compensation - Interest - Once the appellate court enhances compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased, in fairness, interest should be granted on the enhanced compensation unless there is any cogent reason for denying the benefit. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
Dependants of a person who died in a motor accident were granted enhanced compensation by the appellate court. However, the appellate court did not award interest on the enhanced amount, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no cogent reason for denying interest on the enhanced compensation and disagreed with the submission that the award of interest is purely a discretionary order.
Issues: Whether the claimants, being dependants of a deceased person in a motor accident, should be awarded interest on the enhanced compensation granted by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of motor accident claims, when compensation is enhanced on appeal, interest should be granted on such enhanced amount as a matter of fairness, unless a cogent reason for denial exists and is noted by the court.
Result: Appeal allowed to the limited extent that enhanced compensation granted by the High Court will bear interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
Facts of the case:
Dependants of a person who died in a motor accident were granted enhanced compensation by the appellate court. However, the appellate court did not award interest on the enhanced amount, leading to the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that there was no cogent reason for denying interest on the enhanced compensation and disagreed with the submission that the award of interest is purely a discretionary order.
Issues: Whether the claimants, being dependants of a deceased person in a motor accident, should be awarded interest on the enhanced compensation granted by the appellate court.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of motor accident claims, when compensation is enhanced on appeal, interest should be granted on such enhanced amount as a matter of fairness, unless a cogent reason for denial exists and is noted by the court.
Result: Appeal allowed to the limited extent that enhanced compensation granted by the High Court will bear interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation.
S.B.Majmudar, J. , D.P.Mohapatra, J.
(1) -LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties finally in this appeal.
(3) THE short question is whether the appellants-claimants who are dependants of the deceased who died on account of motor accident, should be awarded interest on the enhanced amount granted by the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 who is the only contesting respondent submitted that it was a discretionary order. We cannot agree to that submission. Respondent No. 1 who is the driver has not thought it fit to contest the proceedings and has remained served. In our view, once the High Court has thought it fit to enhance in appeal compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased, in fairness, interest should have been granted on the enhanced compensation unless there was any cogent reason for denying them the benefit which does not exist in the facts of the present case and the High Court has also not noted the same. Only on this short ground, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent that enhanced compensation granted by the High Court will bear interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till realisation. Respondent No. 2 shall comply with this order at the earliest. No costs. Appeal allowed.