Karnataka High Court
Smt. Sanjeevini Ananda Awate And Ors. vs The Managing Director, Hiranyakeshi ... on 10 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: II(2003)ACC461, 2003ACJ1237, 2003(2)KARLJ42, 2003 AIR - KANT. H. C. R. 753, 2003 AIHC 1327, (2003) 1 KCCR 689, (2003) 2 KANT LJ 42, (2004) 1 TAC 139, (2003) 2 ACJ 1237, (2003) 7 INDLD 970, (2003) 3 ACC 236
Author: Tirath S. Thakur
Bench: Tirath S. Thakur, D.V. Shylendra Kumar
JUDGMENT Tirath S. Thakur, J.
1. This appeal was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon'ble H.N. Tilhari and T.N. Vallinayagain, JJ. The judgment granted a certain enhancement in the amount of compensation payable to the claimants-appellants herein. As regards the rate of interest awardable on the amount of compensation, there was a difference of opinion between the Judges comprising the Bench. While Tilhari, J., held, the claimants entitled to interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment, Vallinayagam, J,, took a contrary view holding that the claimants were not entitled to anything more than 6% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till payment (Smt. Sanjeevini Ananda Awate and Ors. v. The Managing Director, Hiranyakeshi Sa-hakara Sakkare Karkfiane, Nippani and Ors., ILR 2000 Kar. 4861). Both the learned Judges relied upon decisions of the Supreme Court and those delivered by this Court in support of the views taken by them and eventually recommended to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to refer the issue as to the rate of interest to a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. The Hon'ble Chief Justice however viewed the difference of opinion between the two Judges as a case calling for a reference to only a third Judge for resolving the conflict under Section 98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The matter was accordingly placed before Hon'ble R.V. Raveendran, J., to resolve the conflict. The judgment delivered by brother Raveendran, J., which is also in Smt. Sanjeevini Ananda Awate and Ors. v. The Managing Director, Hiranyakeshi Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane, Nippani and Anr., 2002(4) Kar. L.J. 28 : 2002(2) KCCR 1353 held that the rate of interest to be awarded in motor accidents claim cases had been linked by the Supreme Court to the prevailing Bank rates. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Kaushnuma Begum v. The New India Assurance Company Limited, AIR 2001 SC 185 the Court observed that the rate of interest to be awarded should be normally related to the rate of interest paid by Nationalised Banks on term deposits for one year. The Court also held that the rate of interest prevalent in the Banks when the Supreme Court delivered its decision was 9% p.a. for fixed deposits for a period of one year which having been reduced in recent times, the proper rate of interest to be awarded in favour of the claimants would be 8% p.a. It is after the third Judge has expressed his opinion on the issue referred to him that the appeal has come up for disposal before us.
2. Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia, provides that where an appeal is heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority (if any) of such Judges. Sub-section (2) to Section 98 deals with a situation where there is no such majority, in which case the decree appealed from, shall have to be confirmed. Proviso to Sub-section (2) however goes on to provide that where the Bench hearing the appeal is comprised of two or other even number of Judges belonging to a Court consisting of more Judges than those constituting the Bench and the Judges composing the Bench differ in their opinion on a point of law, they may state the point of law upon which they differ and the appeal shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges. Such point shall then be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the Judges who have heard the appeal including those who first heard it.
3. The appeal in the instant case was heard by a Bench comprising two Judges. There was, as noticed earlier, a difference of opinion between the said two Judges on a question of law relating to the rate of interest to be awarded. That question was referred to a third Judge as envisaged by the proviso to Section 98(2). The third Judge has delivered bis opinion which incidentally does not entirely agree either with one or the other opinion expressed by the Judges comprising the Bench that heard the appeal initially. That is because while Tilhari, J., had awarded 9% interest, T.N. Vallinayagam, J., found 6% to be the appropriate rate at which interest could be granted. The third Judge has agreed neither with the rate granted by Tilhari, J., nor that awarded by Vallinayagam, J. His Lordship has found 8% to be the most appropriate rate to be awarded having regard to the prevailing rate of interest in the case of Bank deposits. One could perhaps say that there was no real majority opinion on the precise rate of interest that could be awarded in motor vehicle cases. A more realistic and accurate statement may however be that the view expressed by Raveendran, J., taking 8% to be the appropriate rate of interest constitutes the majority opinion at least insofar as 8% p.a. as a rate is concerned. The views expressed by Tilhari, J., and Raveendran, J., concur as regards 8% being the proper rate of interest to be awarded. Vallinayagam, J., was therefore in minority in holding that it was only 6% that could be awarded. Suffice it to say that in accordance with the provisions of Section 98 of the CPC and the majority decision of Tilhari and Raveendran, JJ., the claimants-appellants shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of the claim petition till deposit. M.F.A. No. 552 of 1993 shall stand disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs.