IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 290 of 2009
National Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi .. Appellant
Versus
1. Kulwinder Kaur
2. Miss Navjot Kaur
3. Shri Darbara Singh
4. Smt. Kashmir Kaur
5. Miss Sukhjinder Kaur
6. Miss Jasbir Kaur Respondents
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR
............
For the Appellant : Mr. D.C. Ghose, Advocate
For the Respondents : Miss Ragini
ORDER
4/03.05.2011
This appeal is directed against the award dated 1st
September 2009 in connection with compensation case no. 295 of
2003 passed by learned Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident
Claims Tribunal, Ranchi whereby and whereunder he awarded
compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,38,508/- in favour of respondents. It
is however directed that, since Rs. 50,000/- has already been paid to
the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, on the date
of award appellant should only pay Rs. 7,88,508/- with 7% interest
from 5.8.2008. Tribunal further directed that if the aforesaid
compensation amount will not be paid within 60 days, then appellant is
liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that court below
has applied multiplier of ’18’ which is arbitrarily disproportionate to the
age of deceased. As per appellant, suitable multiplier is not more than
12 or 13. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded
penal interest of 9%, if the payment will not be made within 60 days
from the date of award. This is also illegal because there is no such
provision under the Motor Vehicle Act for awarding penal interest.
3. Having heard the submission, I have gone through the
certified copy of impugned award. From perusal of award I find that
court below has given finding that age of deceased is in the group of
25-30 years. Thus as per Second Schedule of Motor Vehicle Act
suitable multiplier will be ’18’. It is not disputed by learned counsel for
the appellant that at the time of accident, age of deceased was 27
years. After taking into account several decisions of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in this regard I find no illegality in the decision of learned court
below for adopting multiplier of ’18’. Thus I find no force in the
aforesaid contention raised on behalf of Insurance company.
4. So far next contention is concerned, I find that it is
conditional. If the Insurance Company make payment within 60 days,
then its liability is only to pay 7% interest and if the said payment made
after 60 days, then company is liable to pay 9% interest on
compensation amount. Thus it cannot be said that any penal interest
imposed upon the Insurance Company, rather learned Tribunal has
given alternative direction in this regard.
5. However learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant may be given a reasonable time so that he can pay
compensation amount to the claimant with 7% interest. Learned
counsel for Respondent No. 1 has no objection to aforesaid
submission. Accordingly, I direct Insurance Company(Appellant) to
deposit cheque of awarded amount along with 7% interest till the date
of payment by 4th of July 2011 in the learned Tribunal from where
claimants will receive the same.
6. It is however made clear that if Insurance-Company will
not deposit cheque by 4th of July 2011, then Insurance Company will
be liable to pay 9% interest on the entire awarded amount.
7. It appears that Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited in this
court, therefore same shall be returned to the Insurance-company.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this appeal is
disposed of.
(Prashant Kumar, J.)
Binit