1. By way of this appeal, the present appellant- Corporation has challenged the judgement and award dated 21.04.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, in M.A.C.P. No.389 of 1989, whereby the tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,73,800/- to the claimant with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on 15.05.1988 one Kalidas Bhaijibhai Chauhan, respondent No.1 herein, was going on his bicycle to attend his duty in GIDC, Vadodara, at that time one S.T. Bus bearing registration No. GRU- 7238 came from the opposite direction and dashed the respondent No.1. As a result of the said accident, respondent No.1 was sustained grievous injuries, therefore he filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. 389 of 1989 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vadodara, for compensation.
2.1. The learned tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated hereinabove against which the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Corporation.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is on higher side. He further submitted that the tribunal ought to have held that it is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the original claimant and the driver of S.T. Bus. He further contended that 15% rate of interest awarded by the tribunal is on higher side.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgement and award of the tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for by this Court.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. While deciding the claim petition the tribunal has specifically observed that from the evidence on record it is proved that the the driver of S.T. Bus came from the opposite direction and dashed the claimant's bicycle. Further, the evidence of the driver does not disclose that while overtaking cyclist he took extra care and caution. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the tribunal is just and proper. However, I find that the tribunal has committed an error in awarding 15% interest. I am of the opinion that the tribunal ought not have granted interest at the rate of more than 12% and therefore, it is reduced to 12% from 15%. The excess amount of 3% of interest will be refunded back to the appellant-Corporation, if the same is deposited by the appellant-Corporation with the tribunal.
6. In that view of the matter, the appeal is allowed only qua the interest. The judgement and award of the tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. Decree be drawn accordingly.
pawan [K.S.JHAVERI,J.]