Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
General Manager (Now Re-Designated As ... vs Sangum Bhagyamma And Another on 14 August, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001ACJ1860, 2001(5)ALD404, 2001(5)ALT130A, 2002 A I H C 2548, (2001) 5 ANDHLD 404, (2002) 1 ACC 109, (2001) 3 ACJ 1860, (2001) 3 TAC 557, (2001) 4 ICC 749, (2001) 5 ANDH LT 132
Author: S.B. Sinha
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Goda Raghuram
ORDER S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. The reference to this Bench has been made in peculiar situation although no question of any importance arises for consideration in this appeal.
2. One Rajanna died on 22-2-1983 in a road accident that took place on 19-2-1983. The said accident allegedly took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.4. The vehicle was owned by A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. An application under Section 110-B of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation. The Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal upon consideration of the material on record awarded a sum of Rs. 57,000/-with 6% interest from the date of realisation.
3. On appeal preferred thereagainst by the respondent herein, a learned single Judge of this Court enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 3,15,600/- and in place of 6%, the learned Judge awarded 12% interest per annum. When this LPA came up before a Division Bench of this Court (N.Y. Hanumanthappa and Vaman Rao, JJ.), having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas, , on facts it was recorded:
The learned single Judge by following the authoritative pronouncement made by the Apex Court in General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs. Susamma Thomas, , doubled the earning of the deceased and fixed the same at Rs. 1,400.00 after deducting one third of the earning for the personal use of the deceased. Thus by applying multiplier of (17) the learned Judge awarded a sum of Rs. 3.15 lakhs.
Now the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the said decision arrived at by the learned single Judge is wrong and in support of his submissions he wanted to rely on some judgments.
On facts, on hearing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the amount awarded by the learned single Judge is based on cogent and documentary evidence available on record. We do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding.
But the learned Counsel submits that he has a good case for making his submissions for allowing the appeal with which we are not convinced.
4. The learned Judges curiously posted the case for hearing before any other Bench.
5. Yet again, another Division Bench by an order dated 27-12-2000 having noticed the aforementioned observations made by the other Division Bench, opined:
Since the Division Bench recorded findings on facts and law, it may not be appropriate for this Bench to again hear the matter because this Bench may come to contrary conclusions, and therefore, there is possibility of having two different findings of two different Benches on questions involved in this case factually and legally. Therefore, it will be appropriate if this matter is heard by a Bench of three Judges. Let this matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of the appropriate Bench.
6. This is how the matter has been placed before this Full Bench by an administrative order of the Chief Justice.
7. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Court can take notice of the fact that the deceased who was a worker in Singareni Collieries worked for 15 days only in a month. We fail to understand as to how it can take judicial notice of such fact.
8. The teamed Counsel would contend that having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Company Limited, 2001 (1) ALD 95 (SC), the rate of interest could not have exceeded 9%. In the said decision, as regards the rate of interest, it was observed:
.....Section 171 of the M.V. Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that 'in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as may be specified in this behalf. Earlier, 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy and the policy of the Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalized banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We therefore, direct that the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the appellants.....
9. We therefore direct that the rate of interest should be calculated at 9% per annum from the date of award tilt realisation. We however having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case particularly keeping in view the conduct of the appellants as noticed hereinbefore direct that they should bear the costs of this appeal quantified at Rs.10,000/-.
10. The LPA is partly allowed with the afore-mentioned modification.