State of Rajasthan and ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Madan and anr.

- section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. - according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the interest is not allowable in a case where any compensation awarded under section 140 of the act of 1988. 4. i considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the interim award under section 140 as well as under section 171 of the act of 1988. it is true that in sub-section (2) of the section 140 of the act of 1988, it is mentioned that the amount of compensation, which shall be payable under sub-section (1) of the section 140 of the act of 1988 shall be a fixed sum of rs......section 140 of the act of 1988 shall be a fixed sum of rs. 50.000/- in a ease of death of the victim and a fixed sum of rs. 25,000a in a case of permanent disablement of the injured in the accident. the words 'fixed sum' has direct connection only with the amount of compensation. meaning thereby the compensation shall not be more or less, then the rs.50,000/- on rs. 25,000/- as the case may be. the section 140 of the act of 1988 deals with the compensation only whereas section 171 permits the award of interest over the compensation amount. the section 171 says that where any claims tribunal allows claim for compensation under the act of 1988, which tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. meaning thereby the tribunal has been given jurisdiction to awarded interest over the compensation irrespective of the fact whether awarded of compensation is under section 140 or under section 166 of the act of 1988.5. in view of the above, i do not find any merit in this appeal. hence, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the stay order granted by this court is vacated.