PETITIONER:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NARENDRA P. KADAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT16/12/1994
BENCH:
SEN, S.C. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, S.C. (J)
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 782 1995 SCC (1) 320
JT 1995 (1) 244 1994 SCALE (5)335
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J.- Leave granted.
2. This case has arisen out of an insurance claim made by
Narendra Pandurang Kadam. Narendra was a bright student
studying Industrial Electronics. He stood first in his
class and fourth in the college. He was physically fit and
a sportsman. On 18-5-1980, at about 6 a.m., Narendra was
travelling with one Sunil David on motor cycle bearing No.
GDC-7526 along Afonso de Albuquerque Road, Panaji, Goa.
When the motor cycle carrying the claimant and his companion
had reached a road crossing the bus No. GDS-1574 driven by
Alisaheb Appasaheb Nadar, belonging to Ashok Vishwanath Naik
came from the western section of Albuquerque Road, and
collided with the motor cycle. As a result of which
Narendra sustained serious injuries.
3. Narendra’s case is that the accident was due to rash
and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus.
He was plying the bus at very high speed, and was unable to
control the vehicle at the intersection. After the accident
the motor cycle was dragged to a considerable distance
before the bus could be stopped. As a result of the
accident, Narendra sustained fracture of the bone in the
left leg resulting in permanent shortening of the
+ From the Judgment and Order dated 17-2-1986 of the Bombay
High Court in F.C.A. No. 41 of 1985
321
leg, disability of the right index finger, fracture of the
6th and 7th ribs, loss of vision of both eyes with 100%
disability and one of his kidneys had to be removed. The
bus was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
the appellant herein.
4.Narendra lodged a claim for compensation before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji, Goa. The claim was for Rs
6,25,000. The claim was lodged after more than two years.
A preliminary point of limitation was raised by the bus
driver, the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company.
The preliminary objection did not succeed. The Tribunal
after a review of the evidence produced before it held that
the claimants had proved that the accident was due to rash
and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had been hospitalised
at Goa Medical College for three months for treatment of
injuries suffered by him. Having regard to the injuries
suffered by the claimant, the Tribunal held he was entitled
to a compensation of Rs 1,50,000.
5.Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, Narendra preferred
an appeal to the Bombay High Court. A Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal that
the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the
bus driver. The cross-objection filed by the insurance
company was dismissed. After taking into consideration the
prospect of the appellant in life and his potential earning
capacity before the accident, it observed that the injuries
sustained by the appellant, unfortunately, left him
completely disabled and his life, henceforth, will be
miserable. Therefore, the pain and agony, loss of amenities
in life and permanent disability, as well as the necessity
to provide for future expenses incidental to the injuries
sustained, fully justify a higher compensation. The
compensation was enhanced from Rs 1,50,000 to a total of Rs
2,70,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum
from the date of the accident till actual payment. This
compensation had to be paid jointly and severally by the
respondents. Costs were to be paid by the respondents.
6.The insurance company has now come up in appeal before
this Court. On 17-7-1987 an order was passed condoning
delay of 330 days in preferring this appeal and also
directing issue of notice to the respondents. The notice
was confined to only one question i.e. whether the direction
issued by the High Court relating to the payment of interest
was in conformity with Section 110-CC of the Motor Vehicles
Act. The appellant was directed to pay Rs 1 000 by way of
cost to the respondent within two weeks.
7.The contention of the appellant is that a court or a
tribunal cannot allow interest from a date earlier than the
date of making of the claim for compensation. The
contention of the appellant appears to be borne out by the
clear language of the statute. Section 110-CC provides:
“110-CC. Award of interest where any claim is
allowed.- Where any Court or Claims Tribunal
allows a claim for compensation made under
this chapter, such Court or Tribunal may
direct that in addition to the amount of
compensation simple interest shall also be
paid at such
322
rate and from such date not earlier than the
date of making the claim as it may specify in
this behalf.”
8. Ideally a claim should be settled as soon as it is
made. Because of the delay in settlement of the claim by
legal process or otherwise interest may be awarded but such
interest cannot be from a date earlier than the date of the
claim. The language of Section 110-CC is clear that the
interest can be awarded by the Court or Tribunal at such
rate as it thinks fit but the interest cannot be made
payable from a date earlier than the date of the claim. The
contention of the appellant on this point appears to be
prima facie correct.
9. This, however, is not the end of the problem in this
case. The accident caused by the rash and negligent driving
of the bus No. GDS-1574 has ruined the life of the claimant.
Considering that the claimant was a young man of good
health, a sportsman and a bright student, the amount of
compensation given by the Bombay High Court does not appear
to be on the high side. The claim made was for a total sum
of Rs 6,25,000 made up as under:
1. Pain and mental shock. Rs 25,000
2. Fracture of left leg and
shortening of leg, skin Rs 25,000
grafting.
3. Right index finger operated. Rs 5000
4. Fracture of 6th and 7th ribs. Rs 5000
5. Right kidney removed. Rs 10,000
6. Loss of vision of both eyes. Rs 50,000
7. Loss of future, income and enjoyment of lifeRs4,50,000
(average pay Rs 1500 p.m. x 12 x 25 years).
8. No chances of marriage. Rs 25,000
9. Medical expenses and other expenses, extra Rs 25,000
food, fruits, travelling railway charges, medical
bills, expenses etc.
10. One more operation on left leg. Rs 5000
Total Rs 6,25,000
10. The claimant was able to get a small amount of the
claim. In fact, the claim of Rs 4,50,000 on account of loss
of future income and enjoyment of life was made on a very
modest basis of Rs 1500 per month. Even that was not
allowed in full. The amount of compensation was brought
down to Rs 2,70,000. Considering the enormity of the
suffering underwent by the claimant and also the permanent
injuries sustained by him as well as loss of future income
and enjoyment of life, we are disinclined to interfere with
the order directing payment of interest. This will have the
effect of further reduction in the quantum of compensation
awarded by the High Court.
11. There was also enormous delay of 330 days for coming to
this Court by the appellant. The claim was not settled
promptly. On the contrary, the case has been dragged on
mercilessly. The appellant also did not pay Narendra,
Respondent 1, Rs 1000 as directed by this Court in time.
323
Respondent 1 will be entitled to retain the said sum of Rs
1000. The appellant will pay the Respondent 1 a further sum
of Rs 5000 by way of costs.
12. The appeal is dismissed.