JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been filed on behalf of claimant-appellants against the judgment/award dated 9. 6. 93 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur in MACT Case No. 891/91.
(2.) THE only contention urged on behalf of appellants is that the tribunal has committed serious error in deducting a sum of Rs. 60,780/- i. e. , 20% of total amount of compensation on account of lump-sum payment. He submits that there cannot be any deduction out of total amount of award on account of lump-sum amount. He has referred 1992 ACJ 300 (Hardeo Kaur and Others vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another) in this regard. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that learned tribunal is justified in deducting the amount of Rs. 60,780/- on account of lump-sum amount as there were number of judgments at the relevant time. However, no other contrary judgment of the Supreme Court or larger bench has been cited. I have considered the rival submissions and examined the impugned judgment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hardeo Kaur vs. RSRTC & Another (supra), has held as under: " We are of the view that the deduction of 1/3rd out of the assessed compensation on account of lump sum payment is not justified. The accident took place in July, 1977 and the litigation has come to an end, hopefully, today, 15 years thereafter. This court in Motor Owners' Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. J. K. Modi, 1981 ACJ 507 (SC), held that the delay in the final disposal of motor accident compensation cases, as in all other classes of litigation, takes a sting out of the laws of compensation and added to that the monstrous inflation and the consequent fall in the value of rupee makes the compensation demand years ago less than quarter of its value when it is received after such a long time. In Manjushri Raha vs. B. L. Gupta, 1977 ACJ 134 (SC), this court awarded compensation by multiplying the life expectancy without making any deductions. With the value of rupee dwindling due to high rate of inflation, there is no justification for making deduction due to lump sum payment. We, therefore, hold that the courts below were not justified in making lump sum deduction in this case". In view of the above judgment it is clear that learned tribunal has committed an error in deducting 20% amount from the total compensation on account of lump-sum payment. The finding of the learned tribunal to that extent is set aside as the present controversy is squarely covered with the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(3.) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. THE impugned judgment of tribunal is modified. THE respondents are directed to make payment of Rs. 60,780/- to the claimants which were deducted on account of lump sum payment. THE counsel for respondents wants time to deposit the amount in Tribunal. Four weeks' time is allowed for the same. THE amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of filing of claim application i. e. 10. 7. 1991 till the date of deposit of the amount in the tribunal. THE tribunal is directed to deposit entire amount in the joint names of Lalit Kumar Dubey, Jai Prakash Dubey as well as Bhagwati Devi wife of late Shri Brijmohan in the Monthly Income Scheme/fixed deposit scheme for a period of six years. THE claimants will be entitled to receive monthly interest and on maturity of M. I. S. the entire amount will be paid to Smt. Bhagwati Devi. No order as to costs. .;