Partly allowed

Ponnarsu Ravanamma v. Y.Pramila Rani

Telangana HC21 Oct 2009MACMA/3563/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident claim, the Supreme Court allowed a miscellaneous appeal filed by the claimants. The Tribunal had awarded compensation but denied interest from the date of the petition. Applying Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Court modified the award to grant interest from the date of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was modified to grant interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition (17.07.2001) instead of from the date of the award.

Ponnarsu Ravanamma Vs Y.Pramila Rani — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.3563 of 2009

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Award dated 25.01.2005 passed in O.P.No.653 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

¶5

2. The appellants are the claimants. They filed O.P.No.653 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V.Act’), claiming a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of Ponnarsu Nagaraju, aged 22 years. The claimants are wife and parents of the said P.Nagaraju. The 2^nd respondent being insurer of the crime vehicle resisted the claim of the claimants by filing counter. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:-

¶6

(1) Whether the accident is occurred on account of rash and negligence on the part of driver of the crime vehicle car No.A.P.16 U 3377 ?

¶7

(2) That the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondent ?

¶8

(3) To what relief ?

¶9

3. On behalf of the claimants, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 and 16 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of the 2^nd respondent, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. The learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, on consideration of the documentary and oral evidence

¶10

brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No. AP 16 U 3377 and that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.3,85,275/- with interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of award till the date of payment. Aggrieved by non-granting of interest on the amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition, the claimants have filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶11

4. When the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for Oriental Insurance Company received notice on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. With the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, this MACMA is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

¶12

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that under Section 171 of the M.V.Act, where any claim is allowed by the Tribunal, the claim amount shall carry simple interest from the date not earlier than the date of making the claim. A further submission has been made that the Tribunal, without assigning any reason, has not granted interest on the amount awarded from the date of making the claim and, therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified granting rate of interest from the date of claim i.e., 17.07.2001.

¶13

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent supported the order impugned in the appeal.

¶14

7. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, reads as hereunder:-

¶15

“Award of interest where any claim is allowed:Where any claims Tribunal allows a claim for

¶16

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.”

¶17

8. The Tribunal, having recorded a finding that the appellants/claimants are entitled to interest from the date of award, has not given any reason for disallowing interest from the date of the appellants making their claim i.e., 17.07.2001.

¶18

9. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to allow this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The award dated 25.01.2005 in O.P.No.653 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cumPrincipal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, is modified granting interest at 6% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.3,85,275/- from the date of the petition i.e., 17.07.2001 till the date of award. It is needless to mention that the Tribunal had already granted interest from the date of award till the date of payment.

¶19

10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed at the admission stage.

¶20

____________________ B.SESHASAYA REDDY,J

¶21

21.10.2009 v v

Ponnarsu Ravanamma v. Y.Pramila Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ponnarsu Ravanamma v. Y.Pramila Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khagga Tirupathamma Vs Sistla Viswanadham

Enforcement Directorate Government of India, Vs M. Kishan Rao

R. Boina Mallaiah Vs R. Boina Pentaiah

Smt. Methuku , Nyasam Upendra Vs Methuku Rama Sathaiah

Geddam Sambob Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Muslim Educational Association, Regd.No. 10/60, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh