Party, who is guilty of protracting the litigation, is not entitled to interest

It is not in dispute that while the claim petition was pending before the Tribunal, the claimants in the month of June 2013 filed a transfer petition seeking transfer of the claim petition from MACT, Kishtwar to MACT, Jammu which was finally dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2016. The said transfer petition, thus, remained pending for almost three years and during this period, the proceedings in the claim petition remained stayed. According to learned counsel for the insurer, no interest should have been paid for this period as the claimants cannot be given the benefit of their own wrong.[Page No.35]

    Per contra, Mr. Bhat submits that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is not a penal interest, but is only a compensation for the amount withheld and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in awarding interest even for the aforesaid period when the proceedings in the claim petition remained suspended. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Alok Shankar Pandey v. Union of India (AIR 2007 SC 1198) [Para No.36]

  I have given my thoughtful consideration to the plea raised and am of the view that, although in the commercial parlance, the interest is ordinarily not a penalty or punishment, but is a normal accretion on capital, yet the same cannot be applied in the cases of claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. Granting interest to a party, who is guilty of protracting the litigation, would be encouraging the parties to indulge in unnecessarily delaying the litigation. It is well settled that a person cannot be permitted to take the benefit of his own wrong. In the instant case, determination of compensation by the Tribunal was delayed by almost three years due to filing of a transfer petition by the claimants which later on was not pressed and was dismissed by this Court. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to accept the submission of learned counsel for the insurer that the claimants should not be held entitled to interest for the period from June 2013 to 18th February 2016. In the light of discussion made hereinabove the appeal of the insurer is partly allowed and the award is modified to the following extent.[Page No.37]

Single incidence of assault is not cruelty u/s.498A; torture must be continuous and persistent

It goes without saying that matrimonial cruelty occurs within the precincts of the matrimonial home of the wife and she hardly shares her ordeals with someone other than her parents and her near relatives. As a result overwhelming evidence may not be available before the court in a case under Section 498A IPC. But that does not absolve the prosecution from the burden of proving the charge by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence.[Para No.19]

    In the case in hand, the matter was reported to police by the father of the victim after he brought back his daughter from her matrimonial home. It is apparent on the face of the record that the victim lived with her husband in her matrimonial home only for about 6 months after their marriage. Except the omnibus statement of the victim and her parents that the appellant demanded cash from the parents of the victim and tortured her for fulfillment of his demand, no particular incident of any kind of physical or mental torture meted out to the victim or any other instance of abuse in her matrimonial house has been proved against the appellant. In this regard, the Apex Court, while dwelling on similar issue in Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam reported (2009) 13 SCC 330 held as under:

"21. Cruelty" for the purpose of section 498A, IPC is to be established in the context of section 498A, IPC as it may be a different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined / inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously / persistently or at least in close proximity of time of loading the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as 'cruelty' to attract the provisions of section 498A, IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be treated as cruelty."[Para No.26]

    In the case of Prwitish Datta and ors vs. State of Tripura reported in (2014) 1 TLR 848 this High Court held that every case of harassment of the wife either by the husband or his family members cannot be termed as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A unless the conduct of the husband or his family members, as the case may be, is willful and of such a grave nature which is likely to drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or physical. Similarly, in Gautam Nama vs. State of Tripura reported in (2013) 2 TLR 134, this High Court observed that

---

on the basis of mere omnibus statement without specific evidence regarding the particulars of the instances of such torture or cruelty, the accused cannot be held guilty under Section 498A IPC.In the case of Dhananjoy Shil vs. State of Tripura reported in (2013) 2 TLR 1060 also it was held by this Court that a single incident of assault may not amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC because cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A is different from other statutory provisions and it is to be established against the appellant that he subjected his wife to cruelty continuously and persistently. It was also held that petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC.[Para No.27]