Gujarat High Court
Economic Transport Organization vs Kena Pankaj Patel & 2 on 12 June, 2015
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, G.B.Shah
C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5182 of 1995
With
FIRST APPEAL NO. 6462 of 1995
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
======================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
or any order made thereunder ?
======================================
ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANIZATION....Appellant(s)
Versus
KENA PANKAJ PATEL & 2....Defendant(s)
======================================
Appearance:
MR MV CHOKSHY, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
VIRAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL B PARIKH, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 3
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 12/06/2015
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) Page 1 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT [1.0] As both the First Appeals are Cross Appeals and as such challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Main) Valsad at Navsari (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') dated 20/07/1994 in M.A.C.P No.260/1987 both these First Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and award.
[2.0] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.260/1987 by which the learned tribunal has restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the original claimant up to Rs.1,50,000/- only and has awarded to the original claimants the compensation for the death of the deceased father at Rs.5,80,500/- with 15% interest thereon from the date of the Claim Petition till realization, the appellant herein-original opponent no.2-owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has preferred First Appeal No.5182/1995.
[2.1] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in awarding Rs.7,30,500/- only towards the compensation for the death of the deceased father, the appellant herein-original claimant has preferred First Appeal No.6462/1995 to enhance the amount of compensation.
[3.0] The facts leading to the present First Appeals in nutshell are as under;
Page 2 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT[3.1] So far as the present First Appeals are concerned, it is with respect to compensation for the death of the deceased father i.e. with respect to M.A.C.P. No.260/1987. The accident took place between the Ambassador Car, bearing No. MMB 2223, which at the relevant time was driven by the deceased father of the original claimant and the Motor Truck, bearing No.MTT 6661 driven by original opponent no.1, owned by original opponent no.2 and insured by original opponent no.3- Insurance Company on 06/12/1986 at 8:30 a.m. near Vapi National Highway No.8 and in the said accident, the father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and minor younger brother of the original claimant-minor Kena Pankaj Patel died. The original claimant-minor Kena Pankaj Patel also suffered injuries as a result of the accident. The original claimant-minor Kena Pankaj Patel filed six different Claim Petitions claiming compensation for the death of her father, mother, grandfather, grandmother and minor younger brother as well as claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by her. It was the specific case on behalf of the original claimant that original opponent no.1-driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident was sole negligent.
[3.2] The original claimant claimed a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation for the death of the deceased father. The case on behalf of the original claimant is that her father was Master of the Ship and was performing his duty in high sea who earned 6700 per month in Malaysian dollar, which is equivalent to Indian currency of Rs.34,170/- per month with all the medical benefits and home town concessions. It was also the case on behalf of the original claimant that every year he used to get increment of 500 Page 3 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT Malaysian dollar and, therefore, the original claimant claimed a total sum of Rs.25 lakhs towards compensation under different heads for the death of her father.
[4.0] The Claim Petition was opposed by original opponent no.2-owner of the Motor Truck-insurer by filing the written statement at Exh.14. The Claim Petition was also opposed by original opponent no.3-Insurance Company by filing the written statement at Exh.18. It was the case on behalf of the Insurance Company that the liability of the Insurance Company would be to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- only. The learned tribunal framed the issues at Exh.19.
[4.1] In order to prove the claim, one Shri R.F. Patel, who was the guardian of claimant and friend of the deceased father and was appointed by the Bombay High Court, was examined at Exh.32. One Shri Chaitanya Dhruv Mehta, Solicitor of Bombay was examined at Exh.64. Smt Laxmiben Parag Patel, who witnessed the accident has been examined at Exh.81 and Shri Praful Ramanbhai serving as Manager in Shipping Corporation of India, Bombay was examined at Exh.95. On behalf of original opponents nos.1 and 2, original opponent no.1-Driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident came to be examined at Exh.103. On appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal has held original opponent no.1-driver of the Motor Truck involved in the accident 50% contributory negligent and the driver of the Ambassador Car-deceased father contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. Considering the Insurance Policy, the learned tribunal has restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- only.
Page 4 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT[4.2] To prove the income and in support of the claim of Rs.25 lakhs, the original claimants relied upon documentary evidence produced at Exh.54. No income tax return or assessment order was produced. On appreciation of evidence, the learned tribunal considered the income of the deceased at Rs.34,170/- per month, which was equivalent to 6700 Malaysian dollars, thereafter, after deducting the personal expenses towards himself as well as the expenses towards other family members, the learned tribunal has held the loss to the original claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month i.e. Rs.96,000/- per annum and, thereafter, applying the multiplier of 15, the learned tribunal has awarded Rs.14,40,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. The learned tribunal has thereafter awarded a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation under conventional heads of loss to estate, loss of expectation of life etc. and has further awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- towards conveyance charges / funeral expenses. Thereafter, deducting 50% towards contributory negligence of the deceased father, the learned tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.7,30,500/- with 15% interest thereon from the date of the Claim Petition till realization (restricting the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- only).
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.260/1987, both the original opponent no.2- owner of the Motor Truck involved in the accident as well as the original claimant has preferred the present First Appeals.
[5.0] Shri V.K. Shah, learned advocate has appeared on Page 5 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT behalf of original opponent no.2-owner of the Motor Truck involved in the accident, Shri Sunil Parikh, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Insurance Company and Shri M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate has appeared for Shri K.M. Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant.
[5.1] Shri Viral Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-original opponent no.2-owner of the Motor Truck involved in the accident has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in restricting the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- only.
[5.2] It is submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding original opponent no.1-driver of the Motor Truck contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. It is submitted that while deciding the issue with respect to the contributory negligence, the learned tribunal has misread and / or misconstrued the evidence of Laxmiben, who came to be examined at Exh.81.
[5.3] It is submitted that the learned tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the witnesses have stated that there was crowd standing near Balitha bus stand where the driver of the Motor Truck was driving the Motor Truck on the left side and it was not possible for the driver of the Motor Truck to go more on the left side.
[5.4] It is further submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in awarding interest at the rate of 15% per Page 6 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT annum from the date of the application till realization. Relying upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors reported in 2002 (4) GLR 2900 (SC), Kaushnuma Begam and Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2001 SC 485 (paragraph
24), H.S. Ahammed Hussain & Anr Vs. Irfan Ahammed and Anr reported in 2002 (2) GLR 1825 (SC) and the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramniklal Mangalji Thakkar Vs. Daud Osman Ganchi & Ors rendered in First Appeal No.7910/1999 and allied First Appeals, it is submitted that the learned tribunal ought not to have awarded the interest at the rate of 15% per annum. It is submitted that at the most the learned tribunal ought to have and / or could have awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Making the above submissions, it is requested to allow First Appeal No.5182/1995 preferred by original opponent no.2-owner of the Truck.
[6.0] Shri M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant has vehemently submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in restricting the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- only. It is submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in holding that the policy in the present case was "Act policy" and not "Comprehensive policy". It is submitted that on perusal of the terms and conditions of the policy as well as looking to the amount of Rs.240/- paid to the Insurance Company it becomes crystal clear that it was a "Comprehensive policy" and not "Act policy" and thus, the Page 7 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT Insurance Company is fully liable to intervene the owner of the vehicle. It is further submitted by Shri Hakim, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimant that the learned tribunal has materially erred in considering the loss of dependency at Rs.8,000/- per month only. It is submitted that the learned tribunal has materially erred in granting the benefit of the death of other family members to the Insurance Company / owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. It is submitted that the learned tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.34,170/- per month. It is submitted that thereafter the learned tribunal has deducted Rs.8,170/- towards the personal expenses of the deceased. It is submitted that thereafter, the learned tribunal has considered Rs.26,000/- towards the maintenance of his family members and, therefore, out of the said amount, the deceased would be contributing Rs.8,000/- per month towards the original claimant and, therefore, has considered the dependency benefit for the original claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month. It is submitted that the learned tribunal has not properly appreciated and considered the fact that if the other family members would not have died, in that case, for the surviving family members only Rs.8170/- was not required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and, therefore, the loss of dependency of other family members would come to Rs.26,170/- per month. It is submitted that the benefit of the death of the family members shall not go in favour of a tort-feasor. It is submitted that even the learned tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the future rise in income.
[6.1] It is further submitted that in the facts and Page 8 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT circumstances of the case, the learned tribunal has not committed any error in awarding interest at the rate of 15% per annum.
[6.2] It is submitted that the rate of interest at 15% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal for the accident in the year 1986 and decided in the year 1994 is legal and justified since for the accident that took place in the year 1986 and decided in the year 1994, the award of interest at the rate of 15% per annum was consistent and settled proposition. It is submitted that in any view of the matter the rate of interest as applicable as on date in the year 2015 cannot be applied to the accident which took place in the year 1986 and decided in the year 1994 and particularly that too to reduce the rate of interest and consequently effect recovery of realized compensation. In support of his above submissions, he has heavily relied upon the following decisions of this Court;
(i) Rukmani Devi Versus Om Prakash and Ors.
reported in 1991 ACJ 3;
(ii) Mohanbhai Gemabhai Vs. Balubhai Savjibhai and Ors. reported in 1993 (1) GLR 249 : 1993 (2) ACC 33;
(iii) Oriental Fire General Insurance Company Ltd.
Vs. Amarsing Pratapsing Sikliker reported in 1994 ACJ 240;
(iv) Manoj Rambhai Gadhvi Vs. Vaghasia Balubhai Khodabhai reported in 2000 (1) GLH 440;
(v) New India Assurance Company Vs. Surtaji Panchaji Sodha reported in 2001 ACJ 609;
(vi) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Page 9 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT Valjibhai Vashrambhai Monpara reported in 2004 (3) GLR 2734.
Making the above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the First Appeal preferred by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. to dismiss First Appeal No.5182/1995 and allow the First Appeal preferred by the original claimant i.e. First Appeal No.6462/1995.
[7.0] Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. We have perused and considered in detail the evidence on record, both documentary as well as oral. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has held the driver of the Ambassador Car as well as the driver of the Truck contributory negligent to the extent of 50% each and has restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- only on interpretation of the insurance policy and holding that the insurance policy was "Act policy" and not "Comprehensive policy. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at the time of the accident at Rs.34,170/- per month, which was equivalent to 6700 Malaysian dollars. After deducting the personal expenses towards the deceased as well as the expenses towards other family members, the learned Tribunal has held / determined the loss of the original claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month i.e. Rs.96,000/- per month and thereafter applying the multiplier of 15, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.14,40,000/- under the head of loss of dependency. The learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The aforesaid impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is the subject matter of the present Page 10 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT First Appeals filed by the original owner of the Truck involved in the accident as well as the original claimant.
[7.1] Now so far as the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the Driver of the Ambassador Car i.e. deceased as well as the Driver of the Truck involved in the accident negligent to the extent of 50% is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that as such no elaborate submissions have been made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties on the aforesaid. Even otherwise, considering the evidence of the Driver of Truck involved in the accident and other documentary evidences on record such as FIR (Exh.34) and the panchnama of the place of the accident and the manner in which the accident has taken place, the learned Tribunal has held the Driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 50% each. It cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has observed that the impact point was virtually on the middle of the road and the Driver of both the vehicles were equally responsible and negligent. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on contributory negligence is not required to be interfered with. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal in holding the Driver of both the vehicles involved in the accident contributory negligent to the extent of 50%. Now so far as the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal restricting the legality of the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- is concerned, it is required to be noted that on interpreting the insurance policy, the learned Tribunal has held that the policy Page 11 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT is an "Act policy" and not "Comprehensive policy" and it covers the third party risk as per the statutory limit, which is Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties are not in a position to point out how the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal considering the policy as "Act policy" is erroneous. The aforesaid issue has been elaborately dealt with in paragraph 82. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal in holding and considering the policy as "Act policy"
and not "Comprehensive policy". Under the circumstances, we confirm the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/-.
[7.2] Now so far as the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head of loss of dependency is concerned, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at the time of the accident at Rs.34,170/- per month. In absence of any other material on record, whether the job was permanent or not and / or any other material, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.34,170/- per month. Considering the fact that in the family there were six members including the deceased and the surviving claimant (minor daughter) as such, the loss to the original claimant, daughter would come to Rs.6834/- per month. As rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, the deceased at the time of the accident was earning Rs.34,170/- per month and if the amount which the deceased would have incurred towards the expenses of his wife, father, mother and son is deducted, in that case, the contribution towards the personal expenses of Page 12 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT the original claimant-daughter would come to Rs.6834/- per month. The contention on behalf of the original claimant that as she was the sole survivor and sole legal heir and representative 50% was required to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased and the remaining 50% would have been considered towards the loss of dependency to the original claimant is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. In the present case, instead of awarding future economic loss to the extent of Rs.6834/- per month the learned Tribunal has awarded/determined the dependency at Rs.8,000/- per month considering the age of the deceased at 40 years at the time of the accident and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. Under the circumstances, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal awarding Rs.14,40,000/- under the head of loss of dependency is hereby confirmed.
[7.3] Now so far as the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under other conventional heads, such as loss to the society, loss of expectation of life etc.is concerned, considering the fact that the accident has occurred in the year 1986, no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal. Now so far as the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 15% per annum is concerned in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kaushnuma Begam and Ors. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2001 SC 485 as well as in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain & Anr Vs Irfan Ahammed and Anr reported in 2002 (2) GLR 1825 (SC) and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramniklal Mangalji Thakkar Vs. Daud Osman Ganchi Page 13 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT rendered in First Appeal No.7910/1999 and other First Appeals, the same cannot be sustained. In the case of Ramniklal Mangalji Thakkar (Supra) after considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly, in the case of S. Kaushnuma Begam and Ors. (Supra) and H.S. Ahammed Hussain & Anr (Supra) the Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In the decision in First Appeal No.7910/1999 in paragraph nos.6.03 to 6.12 the Division Bench has observed and held as under;
"6.03. In the case of S.Kaushnuma Begam and others (supra) for the accident which took place in the year 1986, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has awarded amount of compensation with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum, holding in para 24 as under :-
"24. Now. we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the MV 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 nationalised 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 Page 14 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT date of the claim made by the appellants. The amount of Rs.
50,000/- paid by the insurance Company under Section 140 shall be deducted from the principal amount as on the date of its payment and, interest would be recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such date.
6.4. In the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain & another (supra) for the accident which took place in the year 1996, considering the aforesaid decision in the case of S.Kaushnuma Begam and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, holding in para 7 as under :-
"7. Learned Counsel thereafter submitted that the High Court was not justified in upholding award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum and the same should have been awarded at the rate of 9% per annum. Reliance in this connection was placed upon a decision of this Court in the case of Kaushnuma Begum (Smt.) & Ors. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & 0rs., AIR 2001 SC 485 : 2001 (2) SCC 9 wherein this Court noticed that "earlier 12% was found to be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in the economy and the policy of Reserve Bank of India, the interest rate has been lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim." Therefore, it was directed in that case that the claimant was entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum. In our view, the submission is well founded and must be accepted. Accordingly, we hold that the claimants shall be Page 15 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petitions till realization.
6.05 In the case of Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. (supra) for the accident which took place in the year 1995, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9% per annum. In the said decision also the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Kaushnuma Begam and others (supra) and reduced rate of interest to 9% from 12% per annum as awarded by the High Court.
6.06 Under the circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the accident which took place during the period from 1986 to 1996, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered 9% interest as proper.
6.07 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashendra Lahiri (supra), relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the accident took place in the year 1977.
Therefore, the aforesaid decision, shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
6.08 Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Bai and others (supra), relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants is concerned, on considering the said decision, it cannot be said that by the said decision an absolute proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the learned tribunal must award interest on the amount of compensation awarded at the rate of 9% per annum.
6.09 Even in the case of Swatantra Kumar (supra), the accident was of the year 1977 i.e. much prior to even 1986 and therefore, the said decision would not be of Page 16 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT any assistance to the appellants - original claimants in the present case.
6.10. Similarly, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Samir Chandra (supra), which is heavily relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants - original claimants, would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand, as in the said case accident took place in the year 1983 i.e. prior to 1986.
6.11. Similarly, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muthaiah Sekhar (supra), would not be of any assistance to the appellants - original claimants in the present case as in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court accident took place in the year 1984.
6.12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Patricia Jean Mahajan & Ors. (supra), S.Kaushnuma Begam and others (supra) and H.S. Ahammed Hussain & another (supra), it cannot be said that the learned tribunal has committed any error in awarding interest on the awarded of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum, which calls for interference of this Court."
[8.0] Under the circumstances, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal awarding the interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the accident, which took place in the year 1986 cannot be sustained. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that if instead of interest at the rate of 15% per annum if the interest at the rate of 10% is awarded, it will meet the ends of justice.
[9.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, First Appeal No.5182/1995 preferred by the owner of the Truck involved in the accident is hereby partly allowed and First Appeal No.6462/1999 preferred by the Page 17 of 18 C/FA/5182/1995 CAV JUDGMENT original claimant is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 20/07/1994 in M.A.C.P. No.260/1987 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimant shall be entitled to a total sum of Rs.7,30,500/- together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, however, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation would be restricted to Rs.1,50,000/- only. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent of awarding the interest at the rate of 10% per annum instead of 15% per annum as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Consequently First Appeal No.5182/1995 is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and First Appeal No.6462/1999 is hereby dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(M.R. SHAH, J.) (G.B. SHAH, J.) Siji Page 18 of 18