Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
R.S.R.T.C. vs Siraj Ahmed And Anr. on 26 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: I(2005)ACC22, 2006ACJ526, RLW2005(1)RAJ111, 2004(4)WLC242
Author: Gyan Sudha Misra
Bench: Gyan Sudha Misra
JUDGMENT Gyan Sudha Misra, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') against the award of compention passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Jaipur City, Jaipur, whereby a claim petition filed by respondent No. 1 was allowed and an award for Rs. 2,43,640/- has been passed in favour of claimant-respondent No. 1 -Siraj Ahmed as one of his right leg below the knee has been amputated on account of the accident caused by the bus owned and possessed by the appellant-RSRTC. While determining the amount of compensation, the Tribunal has recorded that the annual income of the claimant-respondent was Rs. 2400/- per month which has obviously been affected on account of the grievious injury sustained by him in the accident and considering the fact that he has lost an important part of his body which is his leg, the sum of Rs. 2,43,640/- has been awarded which includes the cost of treatment, loss of income as also on all other counts including conveyance expenses food etc.
2. The amount determined by the Tribunal is clearly inconsonance with the provision of the IInd Schedule incorporated under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 as Clause 5 of this Schedule clearly lays down, the principle on the basis of which compensation has to be determined in case of permanent partial disablement and in case of non fatal accident. Clause 5-A of this Schedule lays down that in case of permanent total disablement, the amount payable shall be arrived at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age on the date of determining the compensation and in case of permanent partial disablement, such percentage of compensation which would have been payable in the case of permanent total disablement as specified in the case of permanent total disablement is payable. Applying this principle, it is clear that the amount determined by the Tribunal is not exorbitant in any manner as the respondent-claimant has sustained 60% of the injury and therefore 60% of his income comes to Rs. 1440/- and the age of the injured was 50 years on the date of the accident and therefore the appropriate multiplier to the income of the injured claimant is 13 and when this is multiplied to 60% of the income of the claimant which is 1440/- per month, the amount which is arrived at is Rs. 2,43,640/-. To this amount, when the cost of treatment is added as also the other amount regarding future prospect etc., the amount of Rs. 2,43,640/- appears to be a reasonable amount of compensation awarded to the claimant-respondent. The impugned order therefore does not require interference of this Court on any count. Learned counsel for the appellant however has drawn the attention of this Court that the amount of interest awarded by the Tribunal is not fit to be sustained in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court Narayan v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2001 ACJ, 542 (PJ)) whereby the learned Judges of the Apex Court have been pleased to hold that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the interest on the amount awarded by the Tribunal. In the instant case, the Insurance Company is not the appellant but it is the RSRTC which has appealed but that does not affect the principle laid down in regard to claim of interest. But besides this, it has to be accepted that the interest on the amount of compensation cannot be held payable even before the award of compensation is passed by the Tribunal. The question however, still persists whether the interest on the amount can be paid from the date of the award or not but the award of interest uniformly in all cases cannot be mechanically held payable even from the date of the award for the obvious reason that if the amount of compensation is kept in fixed deposit, the same is bound to fetch interest in future and if the amount determined by the Tribunal is fully in consonance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which has laid down the method and manner as also the principle on the basis of which the amount has been determined and the same does not indicate payable of interest on the amount of compensation, the award of interest on the amount cannot be held payable unless of course there are special circumstances to justify the same on the principal amount of compensation is too meagre or abnormally low. Hence the award of interest on the amount of compensation in the instant case shall not be held payable by the appellant-RSRTC and the award to that extent shall stand set aside. Consequently, the amount of compensation determined by the impugned award is upheld but the interest awarded by the Tribunal shall stand set aside. The appeal preferred by the RSRTC subject to the aforesaid relief stands dismissed.