F.A.O.No. 1913 of 2001. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. F.A.O.No. 1913 of 2001. Date of Decision : 6.1.09 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant. VERSUS Smt.Murti Devi and others. Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. --- Present:- Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, assisted by Mr. Baljit Singh, Deputy Manager, for United India Insurance Company Limited. None for the respondents. --- 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? 4. JORA SINGH,J. United India Insurance Company Limited through its duly constituted attorney has preferred this appeal against the Award dated 5.4.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar, whereby the Award of Rs.1,72,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filling of the claim petition till the date of its actual realization has been passed against all the respondents who are liable to pay the same jointly and severally. Story put forward by Smt. Murti Devi and Jagbir by filing claim petition was that on 9.7.1999, Ram Chander F.A.O.No. 1913 of 2001. 2 (deceased)was travelling in jeep No. HR-14A-0418 from Farukh Nagar to Jhajjar along with Rohtash and Om Parkash. He was sitting near the driver seat in the jeep. When the jeep reached near Dulina Police Post, then the driver of the jeep had lost his control over the jeep and struck against the stones and woods lying on the spot. In the accident, Ram Chander received multiple injuries . The matter was reported to the police. Accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep. Ram Chander deceased was 43 years old at the time of accident and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Upon notice, claim petition was contested by the respondents by filling written statement separately inter alias on the ground that jeep driver was not at fault. Dhoti worn by the deceased sitting near the driver seat was entangled with the woods lying on the road, as a result of which he fell down from the jeep. Jeep driver was not at fault. Jeep driver was not holding a valid driving licence and other documents. Jeep was being driven in violation of the terms and condition of the policy. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- 1.Whether Ram Chander died as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. HR-14A- 0418 by its driver Narain Singh as alleged ?OPP. 2. In case the issue No.1 stands proved whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, if so F.A.O.No. 1913 of 2001. 3 what amount and from which of the respondent ? OPP 3. Whether the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. As alleged in the preliminary objections?OPD 4. Relief. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and evidence on the file, ultimately, claim petition was accepted and an Award of Rs.1,72,800/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum was passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. Feeling aggrieved against the Award dated 5.4.2001 the present appeal was preferred by Insurance Company. Notice was issued to the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company/respondents and have gone through the file very carefully and thoroughly. Learned counsel for the Insurance company argued that payment of Rs.1.72,800/- was ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which should be 9%. Secondly, jeep was being driven by its driver against the terms and conditions of the policy. Finding of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Jhajjar be modified qua interest, in view of the law laid down in Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Ass. Co. Ltd. 2001 (1) ACC 151 SC. Learned counsel for the respondents argued F.A.O.No. 1913 of 2001. 4 that accident was on 9.7.1999. Authority cited by learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On one hand, allegation of the appellant is that interest, if any, be awarded at the rate of Rs.9%. On the other hand, allegation of the Insurance Company is that no question of compensation because the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. In the present case, accident had occurred on 9.7.1999. Claim petition was instituted on 4.9.1999. In the authority cited by Insurance Company “Kaushnuma Begumk and other's (supra), accident had occurred on 20.3.1986. Claim petition was filed in the year 1986. Ultimately on merits, claim petition was dismissed with the direction to the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 50,000/- by way of “No Fault Liability” under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. First submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is not reasonable. Compensation should have been ordered to be paid with interest at the rate of 9% instead of 12%. Submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company has been considered but I am not in a position to agree with the same. Accident had taken place on 9th July,1999. Against the award, appeal was preferred by the Company and the same was admitted. Recovery of compensation as per award was not stayed. In view of the award compensation stand deposited and was disbursed to F.A.O.No. 1913 of 2001. 5 the claimant. In Shri Rama Chandran Pillai and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2007-4) The Punjab Law Reporter 764, Compensation was awarded with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Award in question was dated 22.4.1989. In 2001 (1) ACC 174(Gujrat), Appeal was disposed of with payment of interest at the rate of 12% instead of 15%. 1(2001)ACC 284 DB (Gujrat) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashwin Vrajlal Rajgor and others, 2005 ACJ 1618 (DB). Compensation was awarded with payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Next contention of learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver against the terms and conditions of the policy. Second submission of learned counsel for the Insurance Company seems to be without any force. Admittedly, offending vehicle was insured and driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving licence at the time of alleged accident. As per report by the Licencing Authority Driving Licence was valid upto 12.10.2003 to drive scooter, motor-cycle and jeep. No evidence from the side of the appellant that jeep was being driven against the terms and conditions of the policy. No official from the side of the Company appeared to state that offending vehicle was used as a taxi. No question was put to any witness appearing on behalf of the claimant that vehicle was used as a taxi. No other submission was put forward. In view of all discussed above, there is no F.A.O.No. 1913 of 2001. 6 infirmity and illegally in the impugned award and the same is upheld. Appeal without merit is dismissed. 6.1.09 ( JORA SINGH) Anoop JUDGE