Supreme Court Partly Allows Appeal in Motor Accident Compensation Case: Awards Interest for Procedural Delay

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice J. K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal passed a Judgement dated 19-12-2024 in the matter of T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) through Lrs. vs. V.J. Antony and Others, Civil Appeal No. 14749 of 2024 and held that the High Court was correct in holding that Claimants should not suffer due to procedural delays beyond their control and awarded interest for the period of delay. However, the Court rejected the Appellant’s claim for interest for the period of 708-days of delay made by the Appellant in filing the Appeal even though the Appellant claimed that they were not responsible for the delay.

FACTS:

• That the Appeal mentioned above was filed before the Supreme Court by one, T.C. John @ Yohannan (Deceased) through Lrs. (Appellant) against one V.J. Antony and Others (Respondents), challenging the Order dated 07.09.2023 in MACA No. 172/2019, where the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulum (High Court) allowed the compensation assessment but held the denial of interest for the period from 22.06.2016, to 13.07.2023, as unjustified.
• On 07.08.2006, a bus collided with a jeep, killing T.C. John @ Yohannan, who was travelling with his wife and children. His widow and three daughters filed a compensation claim before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), Thalassery, seeking ₹15,00,000/-. The MACT awarded ₹4,15,000 along with 7.5% annual interest, holding the bus driver, owner, and insurance company liable.
• Aggrieved with the Tribunal’s decision, the Claimants appealed to the Kerala High Court (High Court) after a delay of 708 days. On 24.08.2023, the High Court condoned the delay on the condition that the Claimants would forgo interest on the enhanced compensation for the delay period. The High Court partially accepted the Appeal, enhancing the compensation by ₹9,84,500 and imposing 8% annual interest, but denied interest for the delay periods from 22.06.2016, to 13.07.2023.
• The Claimants argued that they are poor, illiterate, and had suffered due to the loss of the family’s sole breadwinner. They claimed that the delayed filing was the counsel’s fault, not theirs, and sought interest for the period between 22.06.2016, and 13.07.2023.
• The Respondents mentioned that the High Court’s compensation assessment was already generous. They opposed awarding interest for the disputed period, attributing the delay to the Claimants’ counsel.

HIGH COURT:

The High Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the Claimants to ₹9,84,500, along with 8% annual interest. However, it observed that the Appellants-Claimants would not be entitled to interest for the following periods:

1. The High Court condoned the delay in filing the Appeal on the condition that the Claimants would forgo interest for this period if the compensation amount was enhanced.
2. The High Court denied interest for the period between 22.06.2016, and 13.07.2023, due to the counsel for the Claimants failing to supply the paper book to the counsel for the insurance company during this time.

The High Court determined that these delays were attributable to the Claimants or their counsel and justified the denial of interest for these specific periods.

ISSUE:

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Appellants-Claimants were entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the period between 22.06.2016, and 13.07.2023, which the High Court had denied due to procedural delays attributed to the Claimants’ counsel. Additionally, the Court examined whether the denial of interest for the 708-day delay in filing the Appeal was justified.

SUPREME COURT:

The denial of interest for the period between 22.06.2016, and 13.07.2023, was unjustified, as the delay was due to procedural lapses by the claimants’ counsel and not directly attributable to the claimants themselves. The Court emphasised that claimants should not be penalised for delays caused by their legal representatives once the case was before the court.

The denial of interest for the 708-day delay in filing the Appeal was reasonable and justified. The Court upheld the High Court’s Order, observing that this delay was attributable to the Claimants, and they must bear the consequences of filing beyond the limitation period.

The Court found that the High Court’s assessment of compensation was fair and did not warrant interference. It deemed the deceased’s income, as assessed by the High Court, appropriate and held that compensation under other heads was adequately awarded.

CONCLUSION:

The Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal, granting the Appellants-Claimants interest on the enhanced compensation for the period between 22.06.2016, and 13.07.2023, as they should not suffer for delays caused by their counsel. However, it upheld the denial of interest for the 708-day delay in filing the Appeal, attributing it to the claimants. The Court found the compensation awarded by the High Court appropriate and required no further interference, resolving the case with no order as to costs.

Sakshi Raghuvanshi

Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer