National Insurance Company Limited v. Mrs.Anita Rani & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Relief. Both the parties led the evidence and the Tribunal vide impugned judgment, decided issue No.1 against respondent No.1 while holding that the accident took place as a result of his rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5. While decided issue No.2, the Tribunal…
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.L.M.Suri, Senior Advocate with Mr.Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Rajneesh Narula, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. A.N.JINDAL, J: ***** This appeal, preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, is directed against the award dated 11.09.1995, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat (herein referred as 'the Tribunal), awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.3,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the award amount, in favour of the claimants-respondents No.1 to 4 (herein referred as 'the claimants') and against the appellant-respondent No.3 (herein referred as 'Insurance Company') and respondents No.5 to 7 jointly and severally on account of the death of Ashok Kumar in a motor vehicular accident. The claim petition, filed by Anita Rani wife of Ashok Kumar (deceased) and her minor children, had arisen out of the accident dated
02.03.1991 wherein Ashok Kumar died due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1-driver. The same was contested by the Insurance Company as well as the other respondents. They denied all the allegations. F.A.O.No.127 of 1996 2 Amongst other legal pleas, the Insurance Company also pleaded that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. framed:- Out of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
Whether Ashok Kumar had died in an accident with truck No.HYA-928 due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 ? OPP
Whether the claimants are entitled to pay compensation, if so, how much and from whom ? OPP
Relief. Both the parties led the evidence and the Tribunal vide impugned judgment, decided issue No.1 against respondent No.1 while holding that the accident took place as a result of his rash and negligent driving of respondent No.5. While decided issue No.2, the Tribunal observed that the claimants were entitled to a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. The Tribunal, while deciding issue No.3, observed that the Insurance Company had failed to prove that the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Arguments heard. Record perused. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is that as no issue, with regard to the holding of the valid driving licence by respondent No.1, was framed by the Tribunal at all, therefore, the case deserves to be remitted back for framing the fresh issues. Having heard the rival contentions, the argument does not stand to the reason, firstly, the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not F.A.O.No.127 of 1996 3 required to be applied with a mathematical precision, secondly, the issue with regard to holding of the valid driving licence has been duly discussed and decided by the trial Court after going through the evidence led by both the parties, therefore, no specific issue was required to be framed.
It is well settled by now that when both the parties knowingfully well about the rival contentions, led the evidence and the trial Court also appreciated the same then the framing of the issue becomes immaterial. Though the Insurance Company had sufficient opportunity to rebut this document but failed to do so by leading cogent evidence on the record, therefore, the onus, which initially was upon the Insurance Company to prove that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence, cannot be said to have been shifted. The other contention, raised by learned counsel for the appellant, is regarding the quantum of compensation. The Insurance Company had limited grounds to challenge the claim as raised by the claimants. No such application for seeking permission appears to have been moved by the Insurance Company for challenging the claim petition on all the grounds, therefore, the ground to challenge the award on the quantum of compensation is not available to the Company.
It has been further contended that the Tribunal while awarding interest, has taken a harsh step against the appellant while awarding excessive interest i.e. @ 15% per annum. Keeping in view the circumstances that unnecessary delay is caused in awarding compensation by the tort feeders, the legislature enacted Section 171 in the Motor Vehicles Act for awarding interest to the claimants which reads as under:-
Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be F.A.O.No.127 of 1996 4 paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.
Intention of the legislature behind enacting the aforesaid provision was that the sufferers at the hands of the wrong doers may not remain deprived of the compensation due to the protracted proceedings.
Thus with an intention to put pressure for not delaying the passing and implementation of such awards, the Court was to award only simple interest and not compound interest. The matter has been left to the discretion of the Court to determine the rate of interest. The discretion as exercised under Section 171 of the Act is not absolute, arbitrary or autocratic but the Courts have been left to exercise the judicial discretion. Judicial discretion means by due application of mind. The instant case is not an exception where the interest was awarded in excess. The reliance has been placed on the judgments delivered in cases Mala Aggarwal vs. Jagdish Kumar 1992 ACJ 123, New India Insurance Company Limited and another vs. Kamalabai and others 1994 (1) ACJ 519, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited vs. Amarsingh Pratapsingh Sikliker and others 1994 (1) ACJ 240, Leela Ohri and others vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others 1994 (1) ACJ 274 , where the interest was awarded @ 15% per annum. On the basis of aforesaid precedents, the awarding of interest @ 15% per annum cannot be said to have been awarded without application of mind. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
09.04.2010 mamta-II (A.N.Jindal) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 09 Apr 2010. The bench was A N JINDAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.