Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Road Transport ... vs Gowramma on 9 November, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1993ACJ1204, ILR1993KAR24
JUDGMENT M. Ramakrishna, J.
1. We heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. In this Appeal presented by K.S.R.T.C., the only ground taken is that the award of interest at 9% p.a. on the interim compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was incorrect.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the Decision of the Rajasthan High Court in DHAPA KANWAR AND ORS. v. KISHANLAL AND ANR., 1992 ACJ 163 In para 12 of the Judgment, learned Chief Justice observed as follows:
"Counsel for the appellants also made a prayer for payment of interest on the amount awarded as no fault compensation. There being no provision in the Act, no interest is awardable. The Tribunal has power only that which was conferred on it. It was not a Court acting while deciding a claim petition to which Code of Civil Procedure applied and interest could be awarded under Section 34 of the same. The legislature does not, to my mind, have any intention to award interest in these proceedings inasmuch as it was a provision made for giving immediate relief to the claimants and it was not thought appropriate that provision for payment of interest should also be made. Payment of no fault compensation being interim measure, it floes not govern the rights of the parties fully and finally. Ultimately, the liability of payment of interest would be decided by the Tribunal at the time of passing of a final award. At that time it would make an appropriate order for payment of interest on the sum which is paid by way of no fault compensation also."
4. By a perusal of provisions of Section 171, we are of the opinion that the view taken by Rajasthan High Court cannot be said to be a good law. With a view to appreciate the contention now raised before us, we extract Section 171 as hereunder:
"171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed - Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may 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 it may specify in this behalf."
5. No doubt, it is true that Section 140 deals with liability of paying compensation under 'no fault liability' in certain cases. That Section does not refer to the power of the Tribunal to award interest on the interim compensation. But after, seeing the language employed under Section 171, it is clear that the Tribunal, in addition to the grant of compensation may also award interest at such rate as it may specify in that behalf.
6. The submission is that, in the absence of a specific provision conferring power upon the Claims Tribunal under Section 140, to allow or grant interest over and above the interim compensation, the Tribunal cannot grant interest on interim compensation. We do not think that this submission has any force, inasmuch as, reading Sections 140 and 171 together makes it manifest that the Tribunal has discretion to grant interest while awarding interim compensation under 'no fault liability'.
7. In dealing with DHAPA KANWAR's case, the Rajasthan High Court failed to refer to the provisions of Section 171 in para 12 extracted above. In that paragraph, there is reference only to provisions of Section 34 of C.P.C., under which, according to the learned Chief Justice, interest can be awarded as the claim petition has to be dealt with under Code of Civil Procedure. This view is not a sound law inasmuch as the provisions of C.P.C. in their strict sense are not applicable to a case of this kind so long as provisions of Section 171 makes it abundantly clear that the discretion has been given to the Claims Tribunal for awarding interest without reference to the provisions of Section 34 C.P.C. That discretion Is always there to the Claims Tribunal for awarding interest along with the interim compensation payable under Section 140. Therefore, the observation in paragraph-12 "There being no provision in the Act, no interest is awardable" is in fact incorrect because there is clear provision under Section 171 extracted above. In that view of the matter, the ratio decidendi in Dhapa Kanwar's case is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court. The view taken by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimoga, in awarding compensation along with 9% interest under Section 140 and also Section 17 does not call for interference.
In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed.