Jharkhand High Court
Gunjari Devi (Widow) Wife Of Late Mohan ... vs Lal Mohan Yadav Son Of Sri Lochan Yadav ... on 14 July, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1
M.A. No. 196 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No.196 of 2011
------
1. Gunjari Devi (widow) wife of late Mohan Paswan
2. Aaditya Kumar Pawan (minor) son of late Mohan Paswan
3. Smt. Chhedani Devi (mother) wife of Sri Sevak Paswan
4. Sevak Paswan (father) son of Sri Budhan Paswan The appellant no.2 is at present minor as such he is being represented through his mother and natural guardian. Smt. Gunjari Devi (Appellant No.1) All resident of village- Motidih, Post Chakai, P.S. Chakai, Dist.- Jamui (Bihar) .... .... ....Appellants Versus
1. Lal Mohan Yadav son of Sri Lochan Yadav (owner of Bolero D.I. BSTR No. JH 15B 6465) resident of Oppoiste A S. College, Droupadi Sadan, Satsang Gate, P.O. Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar Dist. Deoghar, PIN 814112 (Jharkhand)
2. Chedan Yadav son of Suren Yadav (Driver of Bolero JH 15B 6465), resident of 50/1 'L' Road, Belgachia Liluah Post- Howrah, Dist. Howrah (West Bengal)
3. I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer of Bolero D.I. BSTR No. JH 15B 6465) I.C.I.C.I. Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla Complex, P.O. Mumbai- 400051 (Maharastra)
4. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Ashirbad Mansion, 2nd Floor, Plot No.1794, Main Road, Opposite Tirath Apartment, Post- Ranchi 834001, P.S. Chuita Ranchi, Dist. Ranchi
5. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited (Financier of the vehicle) Ashirbad Mansion, 2nd Floor, Plot No.1794, Main Road, Opposite Tirath Apartment, Post- Ranchi 834001, P.S. Chuita Ranchi, Dist. Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mohan Kr. Dubey, Advocate PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.2 in-spite of repeated calls. Hence, this appeal is heard ex-parte against the respondent no.2.
3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award 2 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 dated 08.08.2011 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge-cum-
Motor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, Giridih in Title (M.V.) Claim Case No.29 of 2006 whereby and whereunder, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,30,640/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum in an application filed under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount and get the right to recover the compensation amount paid by the insurance company to the claimants from the owner of the offending vehicle.
4. The brief facts of the case is that on 05.03.2006 while the deceased Mohan Paswan along with his relatives where going to village as occupant of Bolero vehicle, the said vehicle dashed the salt bags near the road side and turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and the said Mohan Paswan succumbed to the injuries sustained in the said motor vehicle accident. It is stated that the deceased was a private tutor aged about 26 years and 6 months at the time of his death and earning Rs.4,000/- per month.
5. The learned Tribunal altogether framed six issues :-
(i) Is the application of the claimants maintainable?
(ii) Whether the claimants got valid cause of action for the present claim?
(iii) Whether the death of late Mohan Paswan caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero No. JH 15B 6465 on 05.03.2006 at 4 PM on pitch road in village Pathala Nawadih, Giridih Jmua Road, P.S. Giridih9M) District Giridih?
(iv) Whether the deceased was aged about 26 years 6 months private 3 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 tutor and was earning Rs.4000/- per month?
(v) Whether the O.Ps owner and driver possessed all the vehicular documents such as R.C. Book, Insurance policy, driving licence etc. as required under Section 149 (2) of M.V. Act, 1988?
(vi) Whether the applicants are entitled for claim? If so, from whom and to what extent?
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of three witnesses examined by the claimants as well as documentary evidence which has been marked Ext. 1 to 15 in respect of issue no. (iii) came to the conclusion that the death of Mohan Paswan was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of bolero vehicle. The tribunal answered the issue no. (v) by holding that the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also violated the terms and conditions in not filing the effective driving licence of the driver. The learned tribunal took up issue nos. (i) and (ii) and held that the claim petition is maintainable and the claimants have got valid cause of action. In respect of issue no. (iv) and (vi) basing upon postmortem report marked Ext. 14 and the date of birth mentioned in the original certificate of the Bihar School Examination Board assessed the age of the deceased to be 26 ½ years, the learned Tribunal held the daily earning of the deceased to be Rs.100/- and excluding five days holidays, the monthly income comes to Rs.2,500/- and deducted 1/3rd of the income towards monthly income and applied the multiplier 16 and added Rs.10,000/- by loss of estate, loss of expectancy of life and loss of consortium and funeral expenses and thus awarded a sum of Rs.3,30,640/-
4M.A. No. 196 of 2011
7. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though there is several ground in this appeal memo but the appellants confine their argument for enhancement of compensation amount on the following grounds and do not press the other grounds agitated in this appeal memo :-
(i) It is submitted that in view of the multiplier as mentioned in the second scheduled of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 prepared in terms of Section 163A of the M.V. Act, 1988 as it stood at the relevant time, the learned Tribunal ought to have allowed the multiplier of 18.
(ii) It is next submitted that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited in Civil Appeal No.6451 of 2021 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.14558 of 2019], decided on 25.10.2021[2022] Acci. C.R. 165 (S.C.), paragraph no.34 and 35 of which reads as under :-
34. A three Judge Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors. 12 (2020) SCC Online SC 410 : AIR 2020 SC 3076 , after considering Pranay Sethi, has awarded spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees forty thousand only) and towards loss of parental consortium to each child at the rate of Rs.40,000/ (Rupees forty thousand only). The compensation under these heads also needs to be increased by 10%. Thus, the spousal consortium is awarded at Rs.44,000/ (Forty four thousand only), and towards parental consortium at the rate of Rs.44,000/ each (Total Rs.88,000/) is awarded to the two children.
35. Thus, the appellants are entitled to compensation as under:
(i) Towards Loss of Rs.84,16,815/
dependency
(ii) Loss of Estate Rs.16,500/
(iii) Funeral Expenses Rs.16,500/
(iv) Spousal Consortium Rs.44,000/
5
M.A. No. 196 of 2011
(v) Parental Consortium Rs.88,000/
Total Rs.85,81,815/
(iii) and also upon the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru reported in 2018 (4) JLJR 230 SC, paragraph nos.8.5 to 8.7 and 9 of which reads as under :-
"8.5. The Insurance Company has contended that the High Court had wrongly awarded Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of love and affection, and Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses.
The judgment of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) has set out the various amounts to be awarded as compensation under the conventional heads in case of death. The relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced herein below :
"Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years." (Emphasis supplied) As per the aforesaid judgment, the compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards funeral expenses is decreased to Rs.15,000.
The amount awarded by the High Court towards loss of love and affection is, however, maintained.
8.6 The MACT as well as the High Court have not awarded any compensation with respect to Loss of Consortium and Loss of Estate, which are the other conventional heads under which compensation is awarded in the event of death, as recognized by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra).
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and welfare legislation. The Court is duty-bound and entitled to award "just compensation", irrespective of whether any plea in that behalf was raised by the Claimant. In exercise of our power under Article 142, and in the interests of justice, we deem it appropriate to award an amount of Rs. 15,000 towards Loss of Estate to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
8.7 A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi (supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses 'spousal consortium', 'parental consortium', and 'filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co- operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation."4 Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and Rajesh and Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh and Ors. (2013) 9 SCC 544 BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (5th ed. 1979) family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime.6 M.A. No. 196 of 2011
Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of Filial Consortium.
Parental Consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act.
A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram @ Jagmal Singh & Ors. v. Sohi Ram & Ors 2017 (4) RLW 3368 (Raj); Uttarakhand High Court in Smt. Rita Rana & Anr. v. Pradeep Kumar & 6 Ors. In respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of Filial Consortium.
The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under 'Loss of Consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.
9. In light of the above mentioned discussion, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to the following amounts :- Head Compensation awarded i. Income: Rs. 6,000 ii. Future Prospects: Rs. 2,400 (i.e. 40% of the income) iii. Deduction towards Rs. 2,800 [i.e. 1/3rd of personal expenditure:
(Rs.6,000 + Rs.2,400) iv. Total Income: Rs. 5,600 [i.e. 2/3rd of (Rs.6,000 + Rs.2,400] vi. Loss of future income: Rs. 12,09,600 (Rs.5,600 x 12 x 18) vii. Loss of love and Rs. 1,00,000 (Rs. 50,000 each) affection: viii. Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000 ix. Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000 x. Loss of Filial Rs. 80,000 (Rs. 40,000 payable 2014 (3) UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman and Ors. v. Susheela Chand Choudhary & Ors (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570 (DB) Consortium: to each of Respondent Nos.1 and 2) Total compensation awarded: Rs. 14,25,600 alongwith Interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the Claim petition till payment.
Out of the amount awarded, Respondent No.1 is entitled to 60% while Respondent No.2 shall be granted 40% alongwith Interest as specified above."
and submits that both are the cases arising out of the claim application filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It is submitted by Mr. Lall, that total sum of Rs.2,01,000/- ought to have been awarded to the claimants under the conventional heads that is Rs.16,500/- each for loss of estate and funeral expenses that is in total Rs.33,000/-, spousal consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/-, in respect of 7 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 son of the deceased who is the claimant no.2, Rs.44,000/- and filial consortium of Rs.40,000/- in respect of claimant nos.3 and 4 who are respectively the mother and father of the deceased. It is next submitted that the learned Tribunal erred by assessing the income of the deceased to be Rs.2,500/- and the same ought to have been assessed as Rs.4,000/- per month and the tribunal ought to have also added 40% of the said income towards future prospects in view of the principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others reported in, (2017) 16 SCC 680. It is next submitted by Mr. Lall, that the learned Tribunal erred by awarding interest from the date of award and the appellants have no laches in disposal of the appeal. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned award be modified accordingly.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 owner of the vehicle on the other hand defended the impugned award and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the quantum of compensation but erred in giving the right to recover of the compensation amount to be paid by the insurance company from the respondent no.1 and for that the respondent no.1 has also filed M.A. No.231 of 2011. Hence, it is submitted that the award be modified by deleting the portion of the award regarding right to recovery given to the insurance company to recover the compensation amount given to the claimants from the respondent no.1.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 to 5 defended the impugned award and submits that since this is an application filed 8 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act, 2001 as it stood in the statute at the relevant time under which even if the claimant is at fault, he can resort to section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Hence, the principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) or for that matter in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru (supra) in which the principles of law settled in respect of a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 who were enunciated, are not applicable to an application of no fault liability filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this respect, learned counsel for the insurance company also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Sohwa Devi & Ors. vs. Ranjit Das & Anr. in M.A. No.148 of 2010 dated 28.06.2022, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under :-
6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and upon perusal of the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this appeal for consideration is;
'Whether the compensation amount payable to the appellants is to be enhanced?' It is pertinent to mention here that the claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The purpose of the legislature for introducing Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was as a beneficial piece of legislation. Any claim made under the Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 exempts the claimant from proving the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is a settled principle of law that even if the claimant is at fault; he can resort to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The principle of law settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. PranaySethi& Others was in respect of a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So when the basis on which the dependents of a victim in case of death of the victim or the victim himself can be entitled to 9 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are different from the requirements of section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,the principle of law settled by the court or a precedent in respect of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be used as a strait jacket formula in respect of a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the principle of law laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. PranaySethi& Others (supra) regarding adding additional amount towards future prospects cannot as a general rule be applied in respect of an application filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Similarly, since the Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has laid down in no uncertain manner that under general damages, funeral expenses of Rs.2,000/-, loss of consortium, if the beneficiary is spouse to be Rs.5,000/- and loss of estate to be Rs.5,000/-. So this Court is also of the considered view that the appellant-claimants are entitled to general damages of Rs.9,500/- only and not ₹ 70,000/-claimed by them.
So far as the interest is concerned as there is no material in the record to suggest that there was any laches on the part of the claimants in delay in disposal of the claim petition nor any reason has been assigned by the learned tribunal, as to why it awarded interest from the date of judgment instead of from the date of filing of the claim petition, this Court is of the considered view that the claimants are entitled to interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. In view of the second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as the deceased was aged 30 years, the multiplier 17 ought to have been applied by the learned tribunal. Now as the monthly income of the deceased has been, both claimed by the claimants and assessed by the learned tribunal to be Rs.3,000/-, his annual income comes to Rs.36,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd of the same as personal expenses of the deceased, the remaining amount is Rs.24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier 17, the total amount comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. Besides, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,500/- as per second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as it existed in the Statute Books at the relevant point of time of Rs.9,500/- to be under the general payment. So total amount comes out to Rs.4,17,500/-. Since, it is a petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the learned tribunal certainly erred by deducting 50% of the compensation amount on the contributory negligence on the part of the offending truck as there is no evidence in the record to suggest that there was any contributory negligence 10 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 and further as negligence is not a sine qua non for filing an application under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Hence, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs.4,17,500/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment, for which the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and separately liable. The sole point for determination is answered accordingly.
10. It is further submitted by Ms. Swati Shalini, that in SarlaVerma (SMT) And Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation And Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has found fault with the multiplier mentioned in the second scheduled of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as it stood then. Hence, it is submitted that the learned Tribunal was proper in applying the multiplier 16.
11. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole point for determination that crop up in this appeal for consideration is:-
'Whether the compensation amount payable to the appellants is to be enhanced?'
12. It is pertinent to mention here that the claim was made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. As has already been held by this Court in the case of Sohwa Devi & Ors. vs. Ranjit Das & Anr. in M.A. No.148 of 2010 (supra), the purpose of legislation for introducing Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was as a beneficial piece of legislation. Any claim made under the Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 exempts the claimant from proving the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is a settled principle of law that even if the claimant is at fault; he can resort to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The principle of law 11 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 settled in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) or for that matter in the case of N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru (supra) were in respect of a claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. So when the basis on which the dependents of a victim in case of death of the victim or the victim himself can be entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are different from the requirements of section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the principle of law settled by the court or a precedent in respect of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be used as a strait jacket formula in respect of a petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the principles of law as enunciated in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others (supra) N. Jayasree & Ors. vs. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru (supra) regarding adding additional amount towards future prospects in case of applications under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot as a general rule be applied in respect of an application filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or for that purpose the compensation under filial consortium, spousal consortium, parental consortium or other conventional head under general damages cannot be applied to an application under Section 163A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 because Section 163A of the Motor 12 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 Vehicle Act has in no uncertain manner envisages that under funeral expenses Rs.2,000/-, loss of consortium, if the beneficiary is spouse Rs.5,000/- and loss of estate of Rs.5,000/-it is to be awarded. So this Court is also of the considered view that the appellant-claimants are entitled to general damages of Rs.9,500/- only and not ₹2,01,000/- claimed by them.
13. So far as the income is concerned, certainly the perusal of the record reveals that C.W.1- Gunjani Devi who is the wife of the deceased has stated that the deceased was a private tutor and was earning Rs.4,000/-. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she cannot say as to whom the deceased gave private tuition and how much her husband was getting from whom. C.W.2- Ranjit Kumar Paswan has also inter alia stated that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. C.W.3- Mahendra Paswan in his examination in chief filed in shape of affidavit has also stated that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- as a private tutor.
14. As the wife of the deceased could not say as to whom the deceased was giving tuition or how much the deceased was earning from which of his student and except the matriculation certificate, there is no other educational certificate of the deceased in the record, this Court is of the considered view that the monthly income of the deceased would be assessed as Rs.3,000/-. As undisputedly, the deceased was aged 26 ½ years as per the second schedule of Motor Vehicle Act, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier 18. Now as the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed to be Rs.3000/- his annual income come out to Rs.36,000/-. Deducting 1/3rd 13 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 of the same, his personal expenses of the same, the remaining amount comes out to Rs.24,000/- per annum. By applying the multiplier 18, the amount comes out to Rs.4,32,000/-. Besides this, the claimants are entitled to Rs.9,500/- as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act as it existed in the statute book on the relevant point of time, of Rs.9,500/- under general payment. So the total amount comes out to Rs.4,41,500/-. The sole point of determination is answered accordingly.
15. Perusal of the record reveals that there is no laches on the part of the claimants in delay in disposal of the claim petition. Hence, in view of settled principle of law that in the absence of any laches on the part of the claimants for delay of disposal of the claim application, the claimants are entitled to interest over the said amount at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the claim application that is from 15.09.2006.
16. Since the respondent no.1 has filed a separate appeal being M.A. No.231 of 2011. Hence, this Court is not considering the same in this appeal and the said contention of the respondent no.1 will be considered in M.A. No.231 of 2011.
17. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent as already indicated above.
18. In the result, this appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid modification.
19. Let a copy of this Judgment sent to the tribunal forthwith. Since M.A. No.231 of 2011 arising out of the same 14 M.A. No. 196 of 2011 judgment and award is pending before this court, Lower Court Records be tagged with the case record of that appeal.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 14th July, 2022 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-