FAO No.1015 of 1996 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1015 of 1996 Date of Decision.07.12.2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd., through Regional Office, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh ......Appellant Versus Anil Kumar son of Ramji Dass resident of 201/20, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi at present village and post office Banshi, Tehsil Meham, Distt. Rohtak and others ......Respondents Present: Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondents. 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 appeal by the insurance company is on a limited issue for restriction of liability for an insurer to damage of property of a third party. The contention is that the liability as per the terms of the policy stood restricted only to what is statutorily protected under Section 147(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. I have gone through the statement as elicited in the award and I find no plea by the insurance company relating to the restriction of liability of Rs.6,000/-. The restriction of liability is invariably a mixed question of fact and law and there must be a pleading first of all to contend for a restriction and only then can a Tribunal take up that issue for adjudication. 2. Learned counsel also pleads that the interest awarded at FAO No.1015 of 1996 -2- 12% was excessive. The grant of interest, which is permissible under Section 17 must ultimately be seen on the touchstone of law when the order was passed and during those times when an award was passed in the year 1996, the interest was being allowed upto 12% and there are authorities of Hon'ble Supreme court itself including one, in Tajinder Singh Gujral vs. Inder Singh 2006(8) SC 186 that allowed for interest upto 12%. I do not, therefore, wish to make any modification even with reference to the interest. 3. The award under the circumstances is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 07, 2010 Pankaj*