The contention that the lawyer was careless is
matter of debate and the question to be agitated between
the appellant and his lawyer themselves.
According to
Even on this ground the appellant cannot
more living.
the the learned counsel for the appellant, his lawyer is no
escape from responsibility for payment of award amount.
The insurer cannot be compelled to pay the interest
amount because delay was caused by the appellant-
owner of the offending motor vehicle. There would be no
justification to ask insurer to bear responsibility for delay
caused by the owner of the offending motor vehicle or his
Advocate resulting from carelessness on the part of the
owner of the offending motor vehicle and / or his lawyer
and secondly, the award was further delayed because of
proceedings pending for setting aside the ex parte award
and for hearing the claim petition on merits. The onus
lies upon the owner of the offending motor vehicle to
discharge the liability for payment of interest which is
reasonable at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till realization on the award sum of Rs.
1,72,000/- inclusive of ‘no fault liability’. The owner of the
offending motor vehicle could not have been exonerated
from payment of interest due on compensation awarded.
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
First Appeal No.258 of 2011
Pramodkumar s/o Chandrasen Gupta,
:: versus ::
1. Liladhar s/o Meghraj Upadhayay,
CORAM : A. P. BHANGALE, J.
DATE
: 18th NOVEMBER, 2013
Citation; 2014 (2) ALLMR 111 Bombay
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the
1.
ORAL JUDGMENT.
2.
parties.
This appeal challenges judgment and order dated
12.8.2010, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Gondia, in Claim Petition No.6 of 2003,
whereby the Tribunal awarded sum of Rs.1,72,000/-
inclusive of ‘no fault liability’ payable jointly and severally
by owner, driver and insurer of the offending motor
vehicle.
The owner of the offending vehicle was
specifically and exclusively directed to pay the interest on
the awarded amount at the rate of 7.5% per annum from
the date of claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 18.12.1995 till
realization of the amount.
3.
The liability to pay the interest on the awarded
amount imposed by the Tribunal is disputed by the
appellant on the ground that the lawyer engaged by the
appellant did not take care to prosecute the petition
properly and hence claim petition was decided ex parte
It is the case of the appellant that he
on 16.11.2005.
came to know of the ex parte award on 22.2.2006 and
moved for setting aside ex parte award while appellant
also prayed for condonation of delay. On 1.7.2010, the
application for setting aside ex parte award was allowed
subject to payment of costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Thus, the appellant got opportunity to contest the claim
petition on merits.
As a result thereof, the impugned
judgment and award was passed whereby the insurer was
exempted from payment of interest for the period during
which proceedings were delayed for no fault on the part
of insurer.
According to the Tribunal, delay which
resulted in final disposal of the claim petition was solely
because of the appellant as he had belatedly moved for
setting aside the ex parte award and was allowed to
contest the petition on merits. The learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the interest liability ought not
have been imposed upon the appellant by the learned
Member of the Tribunal. The contention is not acceptable
nor convincing to discharge appellant from the liability to
The learned counsel for the insurer has strongly
4.
pay interest for delay caused on behalf of the appellant.
objected the submission from the appellant on the ground
that the owner of the offending motor vehicle is liable to
pay the interest and not the insurer since it was because
of owner of the offending motor vehicle that delay
occurred for disposal of the claim petition. Therefore, the
owner
5.
of
the
offending
vehicle
was
rightly
held
exclusively responsible to pay the amount of interest for
delayed period.
Some facts may be necessary to be borne in mind for
decision in this appeal.
The motor vehicular accident had occurred on
2.8.1995 when deceased Sital was going to coaching class
17-year
old.
Tempo
Trax
bearing
by bicycle through the over bridge. She was aged about
registration
No.MH-35/B/9766 came from opposite direction driven
rashly and negligently by respondent No.3 and gave dash
to the bicycle of Sital. In the result, she suffered serious
injuries and died after she struggled for survival for 15
days.
The parents of the deceased claimed compensation in
6.
the sum of Rs.3,37,000/-.
It was the case of the appellant (owner of the
offending vehicle) as well as driver that there was no
negligence on the part of the driver. Their defence was
considered by the Tribunal on the basis of the evidence
led and it was held that the offending vehicle was driven
by Raju Haribhau Kalsarpe and was owned by the present
appellant Pramod Gupta while it was insured with New
India Assurance Company Limited. The Tribunal also held
that the driver of the offending motor vehicle was
required to take more precaution and care as Sital was
driving bicycle and Raju was driving tempo Trax. Under
7.
1,72,000/- was passed inclusive of ‘no fault liability’.
these circumstances, the award in the sum of Rs.
Looking to the the facts and circumstances of the
case, the compensation amount as granted cannot be
considered as unreasonable or unjust. The interest
amount awarded at the rate of 7.5% was also reasonable.
Such amount of interest is payable from the date of the
claim petition till the amount is realized.
The insurer cannot be fastened with liability for no
fault of the insurer particularly when the owner of the
offending motor vehicle was represented by an Advocate
in the claim petition and delay was caused for alleged
carelessness on the part of the lawyer. The claim petition
8.
was initially heard and decided ex parte
against the
owner of the offending motor vehicle as the owner of the
offending motor vehicle and an Advocate representing
him were absent.
Be that as it may, the owner of the offending motor
vehicle availed of an opportunity of being heard on merits
in respect of the claim petition after delay was condoned.
He was held rightly answerable for delay caused in the
period.
final decision and for payment of interest for the delayed
The contention that the lawyer was careless is
matter of debate and the question to be agitated between
the appellant and his lawyer themselves.
According to
Even on this ground the appellant cannot
more living.
the the learned counsel for the appellant, his lawyer is no
escape from responsibility for payment of award amount.
The insurer cannot be compelled to pay the interest
amount because delay was caused by the appellant-
owner of the offending motor vehicle. There would be no
justification to ask insurer to bear responsibility for delay
caused by the owner of the offending motor vehicle or his
Advocate resulting from carelessness on the part of the
owner of the offending motor vehicle and / or his lawyer
and secondly, the award was further delayed because of
proceedings pending for setting aside the ex parte award
and for hearing the claim petition on merits. The onus
lies upon the owner of the offending motor vehicle to
discharge the liability for payment of interest which is
reasonable at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date
of petition till realization on the award sum of Rs.
1,72,000/- inclusive of ‘no fault liability’. The owner of the
offending motor vehicle could not have been exonerated
from payment of interest due on compensation awarded.
No interference is required
in
exercise of the
9.
The amount deposited, if any, be transferred to the
10.
appellate jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed.
Tribunal for payment of compensation due along with sum
JUDGE
of interest on the award compensation.
No comments:
Post a Comment