/^•</-U-V^~^L/\^' mSQKSS..Q^^ (A£E'EAI*1yAlAJE2QAXJR&.6^QJZO(lJ4 M^4^^^^3^£y^(>10 WvisjonBane^ ,^^E^..lja^^^]^®01^A^^<^^iaE»AIQ^^^^©^ / {NON-A^PUCftNT " N0.1)..^s^ f;;:.;."^^ /^'^.^ '• '^..-- RESPONDENTS fAPPUC^iTNO.U (APPLICANTN0.3) (APPLICANTN0.4) (APPLICANT N0.5) (APPLICANTN0.6) :1, (APPUCANT N0.2) ^' ^Nat&oaal lasurance Com$»an.y Lmute4,Throy^l: Its Divisipnal MaERag^, ©wi^csialOffice-B-1 Taha Coinplex, Ring Road-2, Pri^^AQF^mi N^^ryRites^w, Distt-Bilasipiir(CG) VER^JS& Vishwiaath Giri, S/0-Baban Gir4 A^ed-55 yearsy Bevpati, W/0-Vishwnath Giri, a^ed-54 year^ <!et' Sharda, W/O-Late Amresh Giri, a@ecL -22 years, ^ ^ > Laxmi, D/0<-Late Amresh Giri, £^?d-4jears Deepak, S/0-AmreshGiri, >aged-25rears, Respoiideiit no.4 & 5 areminor, throii^i their ixiother^ respondetit no.3 Sliarda. Parwati, D/0-Vishwnath Giri, aged-19 years, ^s^ <APPUCANTNo.7) ..7. SanjayGiri/S/O-Vishwnath Giri, a^ed-14 years, Miiior^ throi^gh-mother-respondent no.2-DevpatL Res.No. 1 to 7 aU are R/0-vm.- Narkalo, P.S.-Pratappur, DistL- Sui^a(CG) (NON-AP&IX1ANTN0.2) y^ Rijwan Ahmad, S/0- Haldmuddin, VilL-Akbarpur, Gan^aganj, Balraj Nagar, Allaliabad(U.P.)(VehicleOwner) tNON-APRy^NTNO.3) ^ ^sSwW^^S/^ ^ed-!iSyears,@ee^»ati<»i- Dttave^JR/0-Vill-Chafan,Tali.- Sorabe, P.S.-Navabganj, Distt-AUahabad (U,P.) HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH : BILASPUR M.A. fONo. 675 of 2010 Appellant National Insurance Company Limited Versus Respondents Vishwnath Giri 85 others APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT, 1988 DB: Hon'bleShri I. M. Quddusi 8s Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ ^ Shri Dashrath Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. None for the-respQndents. ORDER (Oral) ( Passed on this 14th day of January, 2011 ) Per I. M. Quddusi, J. Heard. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company only on the question of quantum against the award dated25.1.2010, passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Prafappur, in Claim Case No. 37/2009. Brief facts, in nutshell, are fhat on 9.3.2009at about 12.00 noon deceased Amresh Giri was going on the Latori Bhainsamuda public road as a pedestrian. At that time the vehicle, bearing registration No. U.P. 70 AT/7399, which was being driven by the non-applicant No.3 (Fahimuddin) in a rash and negligent manner, hit Amresh Giri, as a result of which Amresh Giri received grievous injuries and while bringing to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. The respondents No. 1 to 7/claimants field a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for awardof a total compensation of Rs. 22,75,000/- under various heads. Learned Claims Tribunal, having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a sum of Rs. 6,90,700/- as "I • is .-l.-.^:l ^ ^' compensation withsimple interest at the rate of 7.5% from the appellant/Insurance Company. It is further directed by the Tribunal that in default of payment of amount of compensation in time, the amount of compensation shall carry penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Being aggrieved, the appellant insurance company has filed the instant appeal on the ground ofquantum. 4. Indisputably, the appellant - Insurance Company has not obtained the permission under Section 170 of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988. It appears that the application for permission under Section 170 was filed by the appellant/Insurance Company on 27.11.2009. On the next date i.e. 2.12.2009 the application under Section 140 of the Act, 1988 was considered and the interim compensation was granted but no order was passed with regard to the application under Section 170 of the Act, 1988. It was the duty of the learned counsel appearing for the appellaht/Insurance Company before the Tribunal to press the application but it was never pressed, though several dates were fixed thereafter i.e, 13.12.2009, 17.12.2009, 12.1.2010, 21.1.2010 and 25.1.2010, and therefore lt remained undecided till the disposal of the claim petition. ^ 5. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the insurer was not conscious from the very beginning that it should have obtained permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 by pressing the application. Hon?ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others 2003 (3) TAC 293 (SC) has held that unless the conditions precedent specified in Section 170 of 1988 Act is satisfied, Insurance Company has no right of appeal to challenge the award on merits. 6. Having regard to the facts situation we are not inclined to interfere with the award, as the challenge is only on the question of quantum. 7. However, we feel that the award of penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum.is excessive and in our opinion the Tribunal should have awarded the simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition only. Imposing penal interest if not proper. The Insurance Company shall not pay penal interest and shall pay conventional interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, as directed by the Tribunal. In view of the above, we allow this appeal in part and modify the 9 impugned award dated 25.1.2010 to the extent that the amountof compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal shall cariy simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition and no penal iriterest at the rate of 9% per annum shall belevied. Rest of the conditions of the award shall remain intact. No order as to costs. Sd/- LM-Quddusi Judge Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^^ Thakur