FAO No.2592 of 2000 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2592 of 2000 Date of Decision. 21.07.2010 United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Regional Office, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its duly constituted attorney .........Appellant Versus Ratni Devi wife of Bhagirath Sharma s/o Nand Lal and others .......Respondents Present: Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Slar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 9. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate for respondent No.10. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The insurance company is in appeal challenging the quantum of Rs.50,000/- awarded without any trial. In a case of collision where the owners of both the vehicles as well as the respective insurers were made parties, the claimants did not press for trial but were contended with securing an amount of Rs.50,000/-, which is the statutory minumum to be paid under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Court should have apportioned the liability between the insurance company and could not have merely allowed FAO No.2592 of 2000 -2- the award to be realized against the insurnace company. While the contention is correct that the Tribunal was required to apportion liability, I would still not detain the case for a fresh consideration only on that ground, for even in the absence of a joint tort feasor, the claimant would be entitled to recover the entire amount against one tort feasor and force an independent action for recovery against the joint tort feasor. In other words, teh claimants can never come to harm by the failure to even make or identify the joint tort feasor's extent of liability. 2. The learned counsel also pleads that the rate of interest, which was granted @15% was excessive. The rate of interest which had been normally awarded @12%, by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was reduced to 9% and still later to 7.5%. In this case, having regard to the minimum amount that has been awarded by the Tribunal, I do not want to make any modification with reference to the rate of interest. While affirming the award, I shall make it open for the insurance company to proceed against joint tort feasor in any independent action and plead the bona fide prosecution of the case before the Tribunal and this Court for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 3. Subject to this modification, the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 21, 2010 Pankaj*