Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/350/2001 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 350 of 2001
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
=========================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
CHHATRASINH
GABABHAI PARMAR - Applicant(s)
Versus
RAMANBHAI
ZAVERBHAI SOLANKI & 2 - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR SK
BUKHARI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE
SERVED for Opponent(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Opponent(s)
: 3,
MR AJAY R MEHTA for Opponent(s) :
3,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 13/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Present
Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been preferred by the petitioner herein original claimant to
quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 18th
August 2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main),
Panchmahal, Gohara in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.1711/1993 in
so far as it rejected the claim of the petitioner with respect to the
interest from the insurance company from the date of application and
to hold that does the petitioner is entitled to recover the amount of
award alongwith 12% interest per annum from the date of application
till realization from all the respondents including the insurance
company as all the respondents are jointly and severally liable.
2. That
the petitioners herein original claimants have preferred MACP
No.1711/1993 for claiming the compensation of Rs.9999/- for the
injuries suffered by him in the vehicular accident which took place
on 23.06.1993. That the learned Tribunal by its impugned judgment
and order dated 18th August 2000 partly allowed the said
application directing the respondents to pay the compensation of
Rs.7000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
petition till realization. However, so far as the respondent No.3
insurance company is concerned, the learned Tribunal passed the order
that the respondent No.3 insurance company is liable to pay the
interest from the date of 1st August 1999 till its
realization as the insurance company was joined as a party respondent
on 01.08.1999. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned
judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in so far as
awarding the interest against the respondent No.3 insurance
company from the date of 1st August 1999 instead from the
date of application, petitioner has preferred the present Civil
Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
3. Having
heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and
considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Aminaben Rahimbhai Kadiwala
reported in 2001(2) G.L.H. 23,
it appears that the controversy in the present Revision Application
is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision. As held by the
Division Bench in the aforesaid decision, even if the insurance
company has been impleaded subsequently as a party in the Tribunal,
it cannot be absolved by its liability for interest of the
intervening period. Under the circumstances, the impugned order
passed by the learned Tribunal in holding the respondent No.3
insurance company liable to pay the interest only from 01.08.1999
till its realization, cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
4. In
view of the above, Revision Application is allowed. The impugned
judgment and order dated 18.08.2000 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (Main), Panchmahal, at Godhara in MACP No.1711/1993
is hereby modified to the extent of holding that the respondent No.3
insurance company is liable to pay interest on the amount of
compensation from the date of submitting the MACP till its
realization. Petitioner shall be entitled to the differential amount
from the respondent No.3 accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the
aforesaid extent. No costs.
(M.R.
Shah, J.)
*menon
Top
