YIANG BAIT MASKUT Vs. THUMBHA DKHAR AND OTHERS
LAWS(MEGH)-2013-6-7
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Decided on June 11,2013

Yiang Bait Maskut Appellant
VERSUS
Thumbha Dkhar And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard Mr. R Kar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. VK JIndal, learned senior counsel appearing for the New India Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. respondent No.2 and Mr. I Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. respondent No.4.
(2.) This appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") is directed against the judgment and award dated 17.08.2012 passed in MACT No.2 of 2009. The appellant/claimant is aggrieved by the non-payment of the interest to the claimant/insurer under the impugned judgment and award dated 17.08.2012. In other words, so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, the appellant/claimant has no grievance.
(3.) Mr. R Kar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant by referring to Section 171 of the Act of 1988, contended that the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award dated 17.08.2012 should have directed to pay simple interest from the date of filing of the application for compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant further contended that the Apex Court in Bilkish v. United Insurance Company Limited and Anr., 2008 4 SCC 259held that the simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition i.e. from the date of filing the claim petition F.A. NO.(SH) 1/2012 Page 3 of 3 had been awarded. Para 4 of the SCC in Bilkish's case reads as follows:- "4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court and the Tribunal is not correct. The incumbent was a bachelor and he could not have spent more than 1/3rd of his total income for personal use and rest of the amount earned by him would certainly go to the family kitty. Therefore, determining the loss of dependency by 50% was not correct. Therefore, we assess that he must be spending 1/3rd towards personal use and contributing 2/3rd of his income to his family. Therefore, we work out that L 30,000 was earned by him per annum. The loss of dependency was 2/3rd i.e. L 20,000. The multiplier of '11' applied for loss of dependency was also not correct and as per Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 it should be '12'. Applying the multiplier of 12 the total loss of dependency will be L 20,000 x 12 = L 2,40,000 and L 10,000 towards loss of estate and funeral expenses, the total compensation comes to L 2,50,000 and incumbent is entitled for interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition. The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid modification. If any amount had already been paid to the claimant then that amount may be deducted from the total amount. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part with no order as to costs.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.