Interest Must Be Granted From Claim Date In Motor Accident Compensation Cases Unless Special Reasons Exist: Gujarat High Court
The Court treated junior advocate’s income as Rs. 2,500 per month, adds 40% towards future prospects, awarded Rs. 1.5 lakh for loss of marital life, and granted 9% interest on entire amount from date of claim petition.
Justice J.C. Doshi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has held that, in motor accident claims, interest on compensation must be granted from the date of the claim petition unless a special reason exists against the claimant. Observing that Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act mandates the Tribunal to direct payment of interest, and that the Act is a social welfare law to be read liberally in favour of victims, the Court held that a procedural delay in serving the vehicle owner was no ground to deny interest for a limited period. It deplored the rigid approach of the Tribunal and enhanced the compensation payable to an advocate who, according to the medical evidence accepted by the Court, was rendered impotent at the age of 32 in a 1992 road accident.
Partly allowing the claimant’s appeal, the Court raised the compensation from Rs. 3,42,028 to Rs. 6,19,460. It treated the junior advocate’s income as Rs. 2,500 per month instead of Rs. 1,800, added 40% towards future prospects, and awarded Rs. 1,50,000 under the head of loss of marital life, having found him unfit for marital life, in addition to Rs. 50,000 for pain, shock and suffering. It directed that the entire amount carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition, and not from February 04, 2011, the date the owner was served, as the Tribunal had ordered.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi observed, “…let me observe that section 171 of Motor Vehicle Act statutorily mandates claim Tribunal to direct that interest be paid on awarded compensation. Section 168 requires “just” compensation and award. Delayed by years loses real value unless interest is added. One cannot be oblivious that for all the years claimant has been kept out from rightful due which he was entitled on the day of filing claim petition. And above all, the MV Act is social welfare law, so it has to be read liberally in favour of victim. Thus, non grant of interest from date of claim petition requires special reason existing against claimant; lacks thereof, as in case on hand, do not justify grant of interest for limited or specific time period. This Court deplore and disapprove rigid approach of learned Tribunal for denying to grant interest from date of claim petition”.
Referring to precedents on the matter, observed, “…when claimant has become unfit for marital life, he should be granted compensation under loss of marital life in addition to pain, shock, and suffering”.
Advocate Hiren M. Modi appeared for the appellant and Advocate B.T. Vyas appeared for the respondent.
“…The claimant has sustained fracture pelvis with urethral injury adding impotency to claimant. Learned Tribunal has taken 24% as functional disability relying on medical evidence, this Court approves adoption of 24% physical disability. Claimant was 32 years at the time of road accident. Looking to injuries and age, 40% is required to be added towards loss of future prospects and multiplier of 17 is required to be applied…”, the Bench had further noted.
The claimant, then 32 and a junior advocate, was riding a scooter on June 23, 1992 when a truck coming from behind dashed into him and its rear wheel ran over him. He suffered a pelvic fracture with urethral injury. He claimed Rs. 10 lakh, pleading monthly income of Rs. 3,000, functional disability and impotency.
The Tribunal at Surat, awarded Rs. 3,42,028 by judgment of July 23, 2014. It took income at Rs. 1,800, granted nothing for future prospects, assessed disability at 24% and applied a multiplier of 17. Interest at 9% ran only from February 04, 2011, when the owner was served. The owner lived in Punjab, and service by gazette publication took years. The insurer’s appeal-stage argument was that the claimant had been tardy.
The Court held that the claimant’s Bar Council Sanad and testimony showed he was a practising advocate who could not be treated as a skilled worker. It approved the 24% disability and applied the 40% addition and multiplier of 17 in line with National Insurance Co. v. Pranay Sethi. Relying on G. Ravindranath v. E. Sriniwasan, it granted compensation for loss of marital life.
Cause Title: S v. Gurumejsing Ajitsing Jaat (Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:63345)
Appearances:
Appellant: Hiren M. Modi, Advocate.
Respondent: B.T. Vyas and Gajendra P. Baghel, Dimple A. Thaker, Advocates.