Summary
In an insurer's challenge to a motor accident compensation award to the widow and minor children of an engineer who died in a 1995 collision, the Court declined to reduce the multiplier of 13 on account of the widow's remarriage in 2002, held that the delay in the claim petition could not be attributed solely to the claimants so that interest at 9% would run from the date of filing, and rejected the contention that no interest should be paid on the future-prospects component, since the money is in fact received only after the period for which the multiplier is adopted. Both the High Court's orders were upheld.
Issues
- Whether the multiplier of 13 adopted by the Tribunal should be reduced to 7 because the widow remarried in 2002 and family pension ceased thereafter.
- Whether the long delay in disposal of the claim petition (filed 1995, decided 2017) was attributable to the claimants so as to deny interest from the date of filing.
- Whether interest at 9% per annum was excessive.
- Whether interest can be awarded on the component of compensation attributable to future prospects.
Held
- The widow's remarriage and the stoppage of family pension did not justify confining the loss of dependency to seven years; the minor children remained entitled to compensation computed on the full multiplier of 13, and the multiplier adopted by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court called for no interference. The deduction of one-third for personal expenses and the 30% addition for future prospects were correct. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Merely because a case stood posted for the claimants' evidence on various dates over four years does not establish that the claimants caused the delay; the law's delays cannot, without proper substantiation, be cast on one party. Interest therefore runs from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of payment. (¶ 7)
- Although interest rates have fallen since the 1980s and 1990s, long-term bank deposit rates still exceed 7%; having regard to the overall circumstances, particularly the long delay and the accident having occurred in 1995, interest at 9% was in order. (¶ 8)
- The contention that interest cannot be awarded on compensation for future prospects, being an amount received in advance, was rejected: where the matter was pending for years and only an interim sum was received, the money is in effect received only after the period for which the multiplier is adopted. Nothing prevented the insurer from settling the claim, at least provisionally, on intimation of the accident; the claimants' deprivation of timely compensation is compensated only minimally by simple interest, and had the insurer disbursed amounts on a rough calculation it would have avoided interest liability to that extent. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
Special leave petitions rejected; High Court orders upheld in both cases. Entire award to carry interest at 9% (SLP(C) 11340/2020, after deducting Rs.50,000 interim compensation) and 6% (SLP(C) 22136/2024) from the date of filing of the claim till disbursement, less amounts already paid; balance to be paid within three months, failing which 12% interest on the total award with interest from the date of default. Pending applications disposed of.