AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.P. Mittal, J.—The Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) in a Petition u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) whereby a compensation of Rs. 4,52,000/- was awarded for the death of Smt. Lokesh who was alleged to be working as a vegetable vendor at the time of the accident. The ground of challenge is that there was a discrepancy with regard to the deceased''s age as also with regard to the age of the Claimants in the two ration cards and that the grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the award on compensation was excessive and exorbitant.
Along with the Appeal, an Application under Order 41 Rule 27 has also been filed to lead additional evidence to prove that the age of the deceased was 50/51 years as against 40 years taken by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of the ration card placed during inquiry before the Claims Tribunal.
The Claims Tribunal in the absence of any evidence as to the deceased''s income assumed that the income as per the minimum wages and awarded the compensation as per the structured formula given in Schedule II to the Act. The deceased''s age was taken as 40 years not only on the basis of the ration card but also on the post mortem report which gave the age of the deceased to be 40 years. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the award on the ground that the age of the deceased was not taken correctly.
It was urged that the interest on the award amount granted @ 9% was excessive and exorbitant. The contention raised is totally misconceived. Normally, the Claims Tribunal and the Courts in Motor Accident Claims cases grant interest as per the bank rate of interest prevalent at the time on long-term fixed deposits. This accident took place in the year 2008 and the Claim Petition came to be decided in the year 2012. During this period, the rate of interest for long-term deposits were in the vicinity of 8 to 9.5% per annum. Thus, the Claims Tribunal was very conservative in granting the interest @ 9% per annum. Thus, the interest awarded cannot be said to be exorbitant and excessive.
The impugned judgment does not call for any interference. The Appeal is devoid of any merit; it is dismissed in limine.
CM. APPL. No. 7302/2012 and 7300/2012 stand disposed of.
The statutory amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the Appellant Insurance Company. No costs.