Subrata Kumar Pattanaik vs Kajal Betal

S.P. Rajkhowa, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 7, 1978, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Midnapore, in Judicial Misc. Case No. 79/76.

On January 21, 1976, at about 5/5.30 a.m. deceased Ardhendu Bhusan Betal was going in a rickshaw towards Norghat, P.S. Mahishadal. Around that time a passenger bus bearing registration No. WGB-2045 was coming from the opposite direction at a high speed and it dashed against the rickshaw and ran over part of the rickshaw at a place called Sitalpur and in the process the bus crushed Ardhendu underneath. Ardhendu died on the spot. At the time of the accident the deceased was aged about 44 years. By profession he was a driver of a Mini Bus and his monthly income as driver was Rs. 540. The legal heirs of the deceased filed the claim petition claiming a total of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation.

National Insurance Company resisted the claims by filing a written statement and disputed almost all the facts stated in the claim petition.

The learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 40,400 with interest at the rate of 6 % per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of the application till realisation. The learned Trubunal also awarded consolidated cost of Rs. 100. However, he did not allow interest on this amount of Rs. 100.

Sri B. Chowdhury, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of National Insurance Company and also on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle, has submitted that while aasessing compensation the learned Tribunal has not applied any multiplier and has not made any deductions due to uncertainties of life and normal health hazards. His further contention is that the claimants are not entitled to any interest as they have not given any written notice that the interest would be claimed.

From the impugned judgment we find that the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased was aged about 44 years at the time of the accident and that the deceased was fit to act as driver at least upto 60 years and so had he been alive, he would have worked as a driver for another period of 16 years. Thus, according to the learned Tribunal, the claimants were deprived of the income of the deceased for at least 16 years at the rate of Rs. 2400 per annum. This amount multiplied by 16 years comes to Rs. 38,400. It is true that the learned Tribunal has not applied any multiplier, but the longivity of an average Indian has now gone upto about 65 years and the learned Tribunal has only said that the deceased would have been active and fit to act as driver at least upto 60 years. So although he has not applied any multiplier, yet we do not find. anything wrong in assessing the compensation for a period of 16 years at the rate of Rs. 2400 per year. It is also true that the learned Tribunal has not made any deductions on account of uncertainties of life, but the amount of compensation assessed by him is so modest that we do not intend to interfere on this score.

As regards interest, the Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to Section 3(1)(b) of the Interest Act, 1978, Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned Counsel has submitted that the claimants ae required to give written notice if they want to claim interest over the amount of compensation claimed as per provision of Section 3(1)(b) of the Interest Act, 1978. However,\\ on a careful reading of this section of the Interest Act we find that such a written notice is required only when the claimants also claim interest from the date of the cause of action to the date of institution of the proceeding. In the case before us the deceased died on January 21, 1976, and the claim petition was filed on May 18, 1976. The claimants have not stated in the application that they would claim interest on compensation for that period. No notice was also served claiming interest for the aforesaid period. The learned Tribunal has not awarded interest for the said period, but he has awarded interest from the date of the application till realisation. The learned Tribunal has not acted against the provision of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act which lays down that simple interest shall be paid in addition to the amount of compensation from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim. Section 34(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, inter alia, states that Court may order interest at the rate not exceeding 6 % per annum on the principal sum from the date, of the decree to the date of payment and Sub-section (2) of Section 34 lays down that where such a decree is silent with respect to the payment of further interest on such principal sum from the date of the decree to the date of payment or other earlier date, the Court shall be deemed to have refused such interest. In the case in hand the order granting interest is without any, ambiguity; it is from the date of application till realisation. In our opinion, Section 34, Code of Civil Procedure, would squarly apply to a proceeding for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as, in our opinion, the Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act would be construed as a Civil Court. The learned Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6 % per annum and thereby he has not offended any provision made in the aforesaid Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the result we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order are upheld.

None appeared to press the cross-objection filed by the Respondents. Hence the same is also dismissed.

We make no order as to cost of this appeal. Preparation of formal decree is dispensed with.

Shamsuddin Ahmed J.

I agree.