Allowed

United India Insurance Company v. Shrail Ansari and Ors.

Patna HC1 Jul 2013MA/540/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous appeal, the Patna High Court addressed the objection by the Insurance Company regarding an excessive 16% interest rate awarded by the Tribunal. The Court found the ground insufficient and, to serve the ends of justice, modified the rate from 16% to 9% per annum from the date of the claim.

What did the court decide?

The rate of interest on compensation is modified from 16% to 9% per annum calculated from the date of institution of the case.

United India Insurance Company Vs Shrail… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.540 of 2010

¶2

====================================================== 1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Madarsa Gali, Chamtolia, Patna City through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas. Appeal and Appellant the Deputy Manager and Constituted Attorney, Regional Office, United India Insurance Company Limited, Third Floor, Chanakya Commercial Complex, 'R' Block, Patna

¶3

.... .... Appellant/s Versus

¶4

Ishrail Ansari S/O Md. Nur Mohammad Ansari R/O Vill.- Nekara, P.S.Sasaram, (Agrer), Distt.- Rohtas (Sasaram) 2. Jaiguna Khatoon W/O Ishrail Ansari R/O Vill.- Nekara, P.S.- Sasaram, (Agrer), Distt.- Rohtas (Sasaram)

¶5

Smt. Shakuntala Devi W/O Satrughan Sharma R/O Mohalla- Alika Colony, P.S.- Sultanganj, P.O.- Mahendru, Distt.- Patna 4. Mritunjay Singh S/O Shri Lallan Singh R/O Vill. & P.O.- Ajami, Distt.Patna

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER

¶7

6 01-07-2013 Heard Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay learned counsel for the respondents.

¶8

In view of the nature of order that this Court intends to pass, it is not required to issue notice to the non appearing respondent driver of the truck i.e. respondent No.2 and the owner, respondent No.3.

¶9

Facts of the matter in brief is that the son of the claimants aged about 10 years met with an accident caused by a truck

¶10

Patna High Court MA No.540 of 2010 (6) dt.01-07-2013

¶11

2 / 4

¶12

bearing registration No. BR-01H/8472 at village- Baijala in the District of Rohtas and died on the spot. The claim application having been filed, the Tribunal upon considering the rival contentions, the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and the age of the deceased, by a judgment and award dated 16.4.2010 allowed the claim determining the quantum of compensation at Rs. 1,54,500/- which was allowed together with interest quantified at 16% payable from the date of institution of the claim case.

¶13

Mr. Singh very fairly submitted that he does not question the award on the quantum of compensation but does object to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal which is very excessive. It is submitted that the ground assigned by the Tribunal for awarding such high rate of interest is that a similar rate was allowed in the award passed under Section 140 of the Act. It is submitted that the reason assigned does not reflect the correct position inasmuch as the said rate of interest was payable only if the Insurance Company failed to carry out the award passed under Section 140 of the Act and since the Insurance Company had made the payment within the period stipulated in the award hence the said rate of interest which was conditional in nature cannot be a basis for fixation of rate of interest in the final award. He submits that in addition thereto, in the present case the interest has

¶14

Patna High Court MA No.540 of 2010 (6) dt.01-07-2013

¶15

3 / 4

¶16

been awarded from the date of institution of the case and since the matter has been remained pending before the Tribunal for all the 11 years, it is an unnecessary burden on the Company.

¶17

The argument of Mr. Singh has been contested by Mr. Sahay appearing for the claimants on grounds that the discretion vested in the Tribunal under the provisions of Section 171 of the act amply empowers it to determine the rate of interest and which does not require any modification.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for he parties and have perused the materials on record.

¶19

The only issue that arises in the present appeal is whether the rate of interest of 16% is excessive. The only reason given by the Tribunal to award such rate of interest is that the same rate of interest had been granted by the Tribunal while passing the award under Section 140 of the Act. The argument of Mr. Singh is correct inasmuch as the said ground cannot be made a basis for the rate of interest in the final award specially when the interest granted in the interim award was conditional upon non-payment by the Insurance Company. On the other hand, in the present case, the interest awarded is absolute. There is no other reason assigned by the Tribunal for awarding such high rate of interest.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

¶21

Patna High Court MA No.540 of 2010 (6) dt.01-07-2013

¶22

4 / 4

¶23

case this Court is of the opinion that the requirements of law would be met and ends of justice would be served if the rate of interest is modified from 16% to 9% which rate of interest has been consistently awarded by the Courts in different cases subject to exceptions.

¶24

For the reasons aforestated the award is modified only to the extent that the rate of interest on the compensation amount would now stand modified to 9% in place of 16% and would be calculated with effect from the date of institution of the case i.e. 9.9.1999 until the payment is made to the claimants.

¶25

This appeal is allowed with the modification of the award aforementioned. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant may be remitted to the Tribunal for its disbursement in accordance with law.

¶26

Bibhash/-

¶27

(Jyoti Saran, J)

United India Insurance Company v. Shrail Ansari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Company v. Shrail Ansari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Kripal Chaudhary and Ors. Vs Raj Kishor Chaudhary and Ors.

Satyendra Kumar Singh Vs Surendra Pd.

Amar Yadav Vs Munna Yadav

Divisional Manager,National in Vs Nimiya Devi and Ors.

Narendra Singh Bhamra @ Narend Vs Kaleshwari Devi and Ors.

Satan Singh @ Satya Narain Sin Vs Gulabehand Sharma and Ors.