JUDGMENT
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. This appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 22.6.1993, delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. IV, Belgaum in M.V.C. Case Nos. 387 and 467 of 1988.
Here in the appeal, we are concerned with the award with reference to M.V.C. Case No. 467 of 1988, it may be mentioned that the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,06,500, payable by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, before the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of petition till the date of actual payment.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 14.2.1988, at about 10.30 a.m., on Gokak-Belgaum Road, an accident occurred involving goods truck bearing registration No. MWE 1064 and thereby the claimants suffered bodily injuries.
According to the case of the claimants, the claimant and his son, who was claimant in M.V.C. Case No. 387 of 1988, were travelling on the motor cycle belonging to the present claimant-appellant, namely, Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. CTB 950, on Gokak-Belgaum Road. At that time, the truck bearing No. MWE 1064, belonging to the respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3, driven by the driver, who was respondent No. 1, before the Claims Tribunal, in rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from opposite direction, it dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant and caused accident resulting in bodily injuries to the present claimant-appellant and his son, who was pillion rider.
A criminal case, no doubt, was registered against the driver of the truck for the offences punishable. According to the claimant-appellant (claimant in M.V.C. Case No. 467 of 1988), that as a result of accident, he sustained compound fracture of femur of his right leg and also several injuries on his right shoulder and other parts of his body. He was admitted in the District Civil Hospital, Belgaum, soon after the accident and was operated in the said hospital on 21.4.1988, and a nail was inserted in his right leg. According to the claimant, claimant’s motor cycle was also damaged considerably and it was got repaired by spending a sum of Rs. 8,000.
3. The claimant claimed that by reason of injury sustained by him in the aforesaid accident, he became permanently disabled, and he is not able to earn as much as he was earning prior to the accident, i.e., Rs. 3,000 per month. The claimant in his claim petition, initially claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000, and subsequently amended his claim and claimed in total a sum of Rs. 4,50,000 from respondent Nos. 1 to 3, for injuries sustained by him in the said accident.
As the present appeal is only confined to claim in M.V.C. Case No. 467 of 1988, we are not mentioning the case pleaded in M.V.C. Case No. 387 of 1988.
4. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3, filed their written statement, denying the allegations made in the claim petition. They denied the allegation that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry by respondent No. 1.
The case of the respondents in the written statement has been that the lorry was actually parked on the road towards its left side, as the cleaner of the said lorry suffered from dysentery and had gone to answer the second call of dysentery.
According to the respondents when the lorry was standing and parked on the road, the rider of said motor cycle, namely, the claimant in M.V.C. Case No. 467 of 1988, riding on the said motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side, and lost control of the vehicle, while negotiating the short turn in the Ghat section, and he himself dashed against the stationed lorry, and caused the accident. Thus, the respondents denied the nature of allegations as asserted in the claim petition. The respondents also denied the claim of the claimant, as made. They denied that motor cycle was damaged considerably, so that claimant has spent Rs. 8,000 towards the repair of the motor cycle. The respondents further alleged that they are not liable to pay and in any case claim of damage is excessive.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal in M.V.C. Case No. 467 of 1988, framed the following issues:
(1) Whether petitioner proves that he sustained injuries in a truck accident on 14.2.1988, at 10.30 a.m., near Karadiguddi Ghat, on Gokak-Belgaum Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the. truck No. MWE 1064 by its driver respondent No. 1?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount?
The Tribunal after considering the material evidence on record produced before it which consisted of PWs and RWs and the material documents, arrived at and recorded the following findings:
It held that the scene of offence- Panchnama, and the other material evidence clearly disclose that accident had taken place solely and mainly on account of rash and negligent driving of the aforementioned lorry by its driver respondent No. 1. The Tribunal rejected the theory set up by the respondents in their written statement. The Tribunal further found with reference to M.V.C. Case No. 467 of 1988, that on account of the accident, the claimants suffered the injuries and the evidence discloses that on account of his falling down, they have suffered injuries, that shows the injuries sustained were the compound and comminuted fracture of right femur near knee-joint and abrasion over right shoulder and also lacerated wound on the right knee-joint of the claimant. That doctor’s opinion has been that disabilities to the claimant were of permanent nature, which have been to the extent of 30 per cent in respect of the said lower limb. The Tribunal relied on the doctor’s evidence and further held that the claimant cannot bend his right leg, and cannot squat and sit as a normal person, and also that there has been shortening of right lower limb by 72″. The Tribunal further found and mentioned that it is established that claimant was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,844, and had taken leave without salary for a period of 397 days, it found that on this count he sustained pecuniary loss to the tune of Rs. 58,532.
6. The Tribunal awarded the compensation to the claimant as under:
Towards pain and suffering Rs. 30,000 For loss of future enjoyment and amenities of life Rs. 15,000 Towards medical expenses Rs. 15,000 Towards incidental expenses Rs. 15,000 Towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment Rs. 30,000 Towards damages to the motor cycle Rs. 1,500 Thus, in total it awarded a sum of Rs. 1,06,500 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, against his claim of consolidated and global compensation of Rs. 4,50,000. 7. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the claimant has come before this court by way of this appeal. On behalf of the appellant, following contentions have been raised: That the award of Rs. 30,000 towards the loss of earning during the period is erroneous and unreasonable, as the Tribunal itself found and assessed that the pecuniary loss of salary, etc., for the period has been to the extent of Rs. 58,532.
Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that court below erred in not awarding the compensation for injuries suffered. He further contended that the award of compensation for pain and suffering as well as towards the loss of future enjoyment and amenities of life to the tune of Rs. 15,000 only have also been inadequate. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the interest awarded at the rate of 6 per cent per annum is insufficient or unsatisfactory.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. Sowriraju, no doubt very fairly submitted that so far as awarding of Rs. 30,000 towards the pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant, there does not appear to be any justification for awarding Rs. 30,000 instead of that, which has been assessed by the Tribunal itself to be Rs. 58,532. He submitted that when the Tribunal has assessed that amount, it can be said beyond doubt that this is towards the monetary loss caused to the claimant being deprived of the salary and should have been awarded, no doubt to the extent of Rs. 58,000. As regards the claim under the head of injuries, pain and suffering and for loss of future enjoyment and amenities of life, learned counsel contended that awarding of Rs. 45,000 is just and if under head of injuries, no compensation is awarded, this court may award Rs. 15,000 and not more.
8. As regards interest which has been awarded at the rate of 6 per cent, counsel for the respondents submitted that interest awarded at 6 per cent is justified and need not be interfered with.
Learned counsel for the respondents made a reference to the decision of this court in Puttanna v. Lakshmana, , and he submitted that in this case, this court has reiterated and opined that 6 per cent interest cannot be said to be insufficient or inadequate.
On behalf of the respondent No. 2, Mr. Sowriraju also made reference to another Division Bench case in Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Geetha 1988 ACJ 251 (Karnataka), and to the case of P. Ramadevi v. C.B. Saikrishna and contended that no case has laid down that interest lesser than 12 per cent cannot be awarded. Learned counsel contended that this is not the rule or law that interest lesser than 12 per cent cannot be awarded. He submitted that the Bench has expressed opinion that granting of 6 per cent normally would be justified.
9. We have applied our mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards award of compensation, we are of the opinion looking to the judgment and observations of the Tribunal, that award of compensation for pecuniary loss on account of the claimant having been on leave for a period of 397 days without pay and it having been proved that he was in-patient for about 244 days and the Tribunal itself having assessed the pecuniary loss suffered under that head to the tune of Rs. 58,532, we do not find any justification for the Tribunal to have awarded a lesser sum, viz., a sum of Rs. 30,000 only, in our view no amount lesser than Rs. 58,532 should have been awarded, and in round figure, in our opinion the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,000 at least under this head of pecuniary loss caused by absence or leave taken by the claimant from the office on account of injuries suffered. As regards injuries, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment and future amenities of life, we find that the court below has not awarded any compensation for injuries caused to the claimant, we also find that award of compensation under the head of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment and future amenities of life, is also insufficient. In our opinion, an award of Rs. 80,000 in round figure in these three heads would be just and we hold that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 80,000 towards injuries caused, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment and amenities of life. So far as award of compensation of Rs. 15,000 towards medical expenses and award of compensation of Rs. 15,000 towards incidental expenses is concerned, it needs no modification but award of compensation of Rs. 1,500 towards damages to motor cycle appears to be insufficient. In our opinion, the claimant should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000 under this head of damage to motor cycle, instead of Rs. 1,500.
Thus, we award compensation as under: Rs. 80,000 for injuries, pain and suffering and for loss of enjoyment and amenities of life taken together. Rs. 60,000 towards pecuniary loss caused to the claimant-appellant during the period he had been hospitalised and had been on leave without pay and under the head of medical expenses, claimant as held by the Tribunal is entitled to Rs. 15,000 and to a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards compensation for incidental expenses awarded by the Tribunal and to a sum of Rs. 2,000 for and under the head damages to motor cycle.
Thus, the claimant is entitled, in total to the sum of Rs. 1,72,000 as compensation. We modify the award of the Tribunal, and the sum of Rs. 1,72,000 is hereby awarded.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the interest of 6 per cent is insufficient. He submitted that, even the amount would have been paid at the earliest it would have been invested, it would have earned interest during this period as well as in 1993, on long term fixed deposits, ordinarily at 9 per cent to 10 per cent. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in very many cases reported from 1986 onward as well as in 2,000, the Supreme Court and even this High Court have awarded interest at the rate higher than 6 per cent per annum, i.e., at the rate of 9 per cent to 12 per cent per annum. The respondents’ learned counsel contested the above contentions of the appellant’s counsel and contended that the two Division Benches of this court and even in the latest Division Bench case in Puttanna v. Lakshmana, , the Division Bench has held award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent is reasonable, as justified.
11. Their Lordships of the Apex Court in very many cases, namely, R.L. Gupt.a v. Jupiter Genl. Ins. Co. ; Hardeo Kaur v. Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corpn. ; Ur-mila Pandey v. Khalil Ahmad ; Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF ; Dr. (Mrs.) K.R. Tan-don v. Om Prakash , as well as in the case of Amar Singh v. Ishwar , have awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. In the case of Ashwani Kumar Mishra v. P. Muniam Babu and in the case of Donat Louis Machado v. L. Ravindra , Apex Court has awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent while in latter case at the rate of 9 per cent.
The Division Bench of this court in another case, namely, Bhaskar v. R.K. Srinivasan, , has maintained the award of interest at the rate of 10 per cent to the claimant and had not interfered with, as well as in the case of D.M. Gayatri v. Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn., the Division Bench consisting of Ashok Bhan and Mohamed Anwar, JJ., held that award of interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum is on the lower side and the said Bench granted interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition to the date of deposit. That in Laxammavva v. Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Trans. Corpn., M.F.A. No. 1890 of 1994; decided on 6.1.1999, by the Division Bench consisting of Sadashiva and Ban-nurmath, JJ., held that the award of interest at 6 per cent is very low and enhanced the same to 9 per cent. So this trend of cases is that, ordinarily rate of 6 per cent is taken to be on lower side and interest has been awarded at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.
12. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to the observations of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Puttanna v. Lakshmana, , which read as under:
(13) It may be noticed here that no judgment of the Supreme Court declaring as of law within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution has been brought to our notice which has held that the Claims Tribunal should always award interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the entire amount of compensation, which comprises both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. On the other hand, the two Division Bench judgments of this court in the cases of Geetha 1988 ACJ 251 (Karnataka) and Ramadevi , still hold good, according to which, the awarding of composite rate of interest at 6 per cent per annum on the amount awarded should be found reasonable unless the special facts and circumstances of the case warrant granting of any other rate, may be higher or lower. It has been held that any deviation for granting interest at the rate different than 6 per cent per annum should be supported by appropriate reasons to be spelled out by the Tribunal in its judgment.
(14) It is further to be held that while determining the rate of interest and the period for which the same is sought to be granted, the Tribunal should give due consideration to the fact as to whether the claim proceedings have been sought to be lingered either by the claimant or the owner or his insurer, so that it may act as deterrent against the erring party and compensatory for the other.
This case reveals that ordinarily awarding of 6 per cent interest has been taken to be reasonable and justifiable unless special facts or circumstances warrant awarding of interest at a higher or a lower rate.
Delay in disposal of case may also be the cause, provided and unless it is not proved that delay was on account of any act of commission or omission on the part of the claimant. In the earlier Division Bench relied and referred is the case of Managing Director, Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. v. Geetha 1988 ACJ 251 (Karnataka), it has been observed:
It is erroneous to predicate that there is anything in the law or the binding precedents that wherever interest is awarded, its rate should not be less than 12 per cent. Both the award and the rate of interest are in the discretion of the Tribunal to be exercised judicially and judiciously, not arbitrarily or capriciously, but in accordance with sound principles.
Generally speaking, a composite rate of 6 per cent should be considered satisfactory without any specific itemisation because the component of compensation in the ‘interest pool’ is comparatively smaller and the sizable component is the amount awarded for the loss of future dependency. We, however, hasten to add that the Tribunals have an undoubted discretion to award higher rates of interest, if in their opinion, the circumstances of the particular case justify such higher rates.
(Emphasis supplied)
A perusal of the decisions referred to by the respondents’ counsel, namely, in Puttanna’s case (supra), reveals that attention of the court was not invited to Division Bench’s decision of this court in DM. Gayatri’s case , nor to Division Bench’s decision in Laxammavva ‘s case (supra) as well nor to the provisions of Interest Act, 1978, which applies to Tribunals as well.
13. In the case of Sneha Dutta v. Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. , their Lordships awarded interest at the rate of 12 per cent but it has been made clear that if the sum of Rs. 75,000 which had been additionally awarded to the appellants, is not deposited within the stipulated period, then on the expiry of that period, it will start earning interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, till the date of actual deposit or payment.
Applying the same principle for the present, as adopted in Sneha Dutta’s case, referred to above, we direct that: (a) On the sum of Rs. 1,72,000 as awarded by us the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum shall be payable to the claimant-appellant from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. (b) The aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,72,000 along with interest up-to-date shall be deposited in M.A.C.T. concerned, within a period of ten weeks from today by the respondents, and if respondents fail to deposit the same within above stipulated period, then on enhanced amount of compensation they will have to pay interest at 12 per cent per annum from the date of application to the date of deposit.
Let 80 per cent of the amount so deposited, as awarded with interest be invested in long term deposit in some nationalised bank earning interest thereon for a period of 5 years in the claimant’s name who will be entitled to draw interest earned every month or every quarterly during that period, later with permission of court, may withdraw entire amount. Let the copy of the operative portion of order be made available to the counsel for the respondents within a week from today.