IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 731 of 2006 Ratan Kumar Aggarwal …Appellant Versus Vishram Ram & another …Respondents Sri M.C. Pandey, Advocate for appellant Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Sri Deepak Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 2 Dated: November 10, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.9.2000 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C. Case No. 99 of 1999, Vishram Ram versus Sri Ratan Kumar Aggarwal & another. The claimant-Vishram Ram filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, before the Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of his son- Kishore Ram (deceased) in a motor vehicle accident alleging therein that on 4.4.1999 when deceased was crossing the road, Armada Jeep No. U.P.03/2766 hit the deceased due to rash and negligent driving of its driver and deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation against opposite parties. 2 Opposite party no. 1 owner of vehicle in question filed his written statement and pleaded that on the date of alleged accident the alleged jeep was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd. and he has not admitted the contents of paragraph nos. 1 to 8 as given by claimant in the claim petition and has also not admitted the contents of paragraph nos. 11 to 14. He has also pleaded that alleged vehicle was being plied by its driver cautiously and deceased died on account of his own negligence and at the time of alleged accident all papers of jeep were complete and driver was holding valid driving licence and the said vehicle was insured on the date of accident and claimant has claimed excessive compensation. He has further pleaded that he was not liable to pay any amount of compensation and the said claim petition was liable to be dismissed. Opposite party no. 2-insurance company filed its written statement and denied the contents of paragraph nos. 1 to 16. It has pleaded the claimant was duty bound to prove the said statements by evidence. It has further admitted that alleged vehicle Jeep No. U.P.03/2766 was insured with it and insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation and liability to pay the amount of compensation is of opposite party no. 2. It has further pleaded that on the date of alleged accident driver of vehicle in question was not holding valid driving licence and the said vehicle was being plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy. It has also pleaded that claim petition was bad for non- joinder of driver as party and the said claim petition was liable to be dismissed. 3 The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their cases. The Tribunal after having considered the material available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide judgment and award dated 18.9.2000. The Tribunal further directed that amount awarded shall be paid by the owner of vehicle in question- Ratan Kumar Aggarwal. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellant i.e. owner of vehicle in question has preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri M.C. Pandey, learned counsel for appellant, Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Sri Deepak Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his arguments towards this aspect of the matter that the Tribunal has wrongly shifted the burden on the shoulder of the owner of vehicle for payment of amount of compensation. It has been submitted that the driving licence filed by owner of vehicle clearly indicates that on the date of accident the same was valid and effective, but the Tribunal has fell in error by ignoring this aspect and directing 4 that the amount of compensation shall be paid by the owner of vehicle in question. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2- insurance company has made the rival contention by submitting that the paper furnished by the insurance company clearly reveals that the driving licence to the driver of offending vehicle was not issued from the office of R.T.O. Haldwani on Form- 54. He has invited my attention towards paper no. 18-C/3 which indicates that the driving licence to the driver of offending vehicle was not issued from the office of R.T.O. Haldwani. The record available on the file of the case shows that the owner of vehicle has filed the photocopy of the driving licence of the driver-Bhim Singh, which shows that driving licence issued to the driver of offending vehicle was valid upto 23.5.2000. The accident in this case took place on 4.4.1999. The insurance company has failed to discharge its burden by establishing this aspect that the driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident by way of any cogent and reliable evidence. The insurance company has merely submitted the paper filed by the Investigator of the company showing therein that driving licence to the driver of offending vehicle was not issued from the office of R.T.O. Haldwani. The photocopy of the driving licence issued to driver–Bhim Singh, which is available on record as paper no. 18-C/2, clearly indicates that this document was renewed time to time from the office of R.T.O. Kathgodam and lastly it was renewed upto 23.5.2000. The insurance 5 company has not produced any witness from the office of R.T.O. who could have deposed before the Tribunal that the driving licence filed by owner of vehicle could be said to be invalid or ineffective on the date of accident. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the driver of offending vehicle-Bhim Singh, who was plying the offending vehicle No. U.P.- 03/2766, was having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident i.e. 4.4.1999. Hence, under these circumstances, the direction issued by the Tribunal is perverse and against the provisions of law that owner of vehicle is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. I am of the view that the insurance company i.e. National Insurance Company Limited, who was insurer of offending vehicle in question on the date of accident, is liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. It is further made clear that the interest indicated by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award is certainly on higher side. The interest on the amount of compensation could not travel more than 6% from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment. The interest awarded by the Tribunal as 10% is liable to be set aside. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of 6 actual payment. The amount to be awarded in favour of claimant shall be paid by the insurer of vehicle in question i.e. National Insurance Co. Ltd. The amount deposited by the owner of vehicle/appellant with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned, so that the owner of vehicle may move an application before the Tribunal concerned for withdrawal of the money. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP