w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Vijaya @ Vidya Ramrao Mohod & Others v/s Mohd. Farooque Gulam Shabbir & Others

    First Appeal No. 509 of 2017

    Decided On, 14 August 2019

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.G. GIRATKAR

    For the Appellants: N.B. Raut, Advocate. For the Respondents: None.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

1. Following order was passed on 05.08.2019.

“Heard learned Counsel Shri Raut for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Put up for final hearing on 13.08.2019”.

2. Today also none appeared for the respondents.


Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

/>3. Heard learned Counsel Shri Raut for the appellants. He has pointed out para 13 and 15 of the impugned judgment. The trial Court not granted interest on the ground that the petition was filed in the year 1992. The petitioner failed to lead evidence, therefore, it was dismissed on 13.11.2002. Thereafter a restoration application was filed. The matter was delayed by the petitioners and, therefore, not entitled for interest. The learned trial Court granted interest on the compensation amount of Rs.18,44,525/at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of order till the payment. Learned Counsel has submitted that the appellants are entitled for the interest from the date of petition i.e. from 29.11.1992 till realization of whole amount.

4. Learned Counsel Shri Raut has pointed out the judgments in the case of Rekha Dutta and others Vs. Ram Avatar Lohia and another reported in 2009 ACJ 2679 and Mohinder Kaur and others Vs. Hira Nand Sindhi (Ghoriwala) and another reported in 2007 ACJ 2123.

5. In the cited decision in the case of Rekha Dutta (cited supra), it is held that:

“Tribunal refused to grant pendente lite interest on the ground that claimants took several adjournments for service of owner, proceedings were dismissed for default, then restored and insurance company should not be penalized by saddling it with interest......”

“It is held that the grant of interest is not a penal measure. Insurance Company has retained amount of compensation and enjoyed the interest on the amount and, therefore, the claimant is entitled for interest”.

6. In the case of Mohinder Kaur (cited supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court granted interest from the date of filing of claim petition till the realization of the whole amount.

7. In view of the cited judgments, denying the interest from the date of filing the petition till the date of passing of order by the trial Court on the ground that the appellants were responsible for delay is not sustainable. Hence, the appeal is allowed.

8. Impugned judgment is modified as under:

“Respondent nos. 1 to 3 do pay Rs.18,44,525/- to petitioner no. 5 exclusive of the amount of “No Fault Liability” with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition i.e. from 29.11.1992 till the realization of the whole amount”.

9. Remaining part of the judgment is maintained as it is.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs
OR

Already A Member?

Also