FAO No. 4455 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 4455 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.3.2010 Alam Khan and another ..... Appellants vs ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Company and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, for respondent no. 1. Rajesh Bindal J. In the present appeal the liability of the award was put on the owner and driver of the vehicle on account of the fact that inspite of a specific direction, the owner had failed to produce on record the route permit in respect of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved against the award, the owner and driver are in appeal before this court. Briefly, the facts as mentioned in the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) are that on 5.6.2008, Devi Ram was going on motor cycle no. HR-29-N-7043 along with one Muni Lal as pillion rider from Village Pakhal to Village Nimoth. At about 7.30 p.m., when they reached near bus stop of Village Lala Kherli, a dumper bearing registration No. HR-29V-8707, driven by appellant no. 1 at a high speed, in rash and negligent manner, came from behind and struck against the motor cycle. As a result of this, they fell down and the dumper run over and crushed the head of Devi Ram resulting into his death at the spot. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants filed petition before the learned Tribunal which was disposed of and the appellants were held liable to pay the compensation vide award dated 4.4.2009. The reason for the same was that the appellants failed to produce on record the route permit of the vehicle involved in the accident otherwise the vehicle was found to be insured with respondent no. 1 company. It is this award which is impugned in the present appeal. Along with the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants had FAO No. 4455 of 2009 2 produced on record copy of the route permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ballabhgarh, Faridabad (Haryana) as Annexure A-1. Considering the fact that in case the route permit produced by the appellants is found to be genuine, the Insurance company would be liable to indemnify the insured, the counsel for the Insurance company was asked to get the certificate verified. Today, learned counsel for the Insurance company stated that on verification, the route permit Annexure A-1, filed with the appeal was found to be genuine. However, learned counsel further submitted that for the fault of the appellants the award of the Tribunal could not be satisfied immediately after it was pronounced as the insurance company was not held liable to pay the compensation. The appellants should have paid the compensation immediately after the same was pronounced by the Tribunal and for any subsequent period the insurance company should not be made liable to pay the interest. Learned counsel for the appellants in response to the arguments, submitted that once finally it is found that the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation to the claimants, the appellants should not be burdened with any interest even for the subsequent period. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fair stand of the learned counsel for the Insurance company, the application filed by the applicants/appellants for additional evidence seeking permission to produce on record route permit is allowed. The document annexed with the application is taken on record. Considering the route permit, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, holding the owner and driver of the offending vehicle responsible to satisfy the award on account of the fact that they had violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by plying the offending vehicle without any route permit, is set aside and it is held that the insurance company will be liable to satisfy the award. As regards dispute of interest for the intervening period, in my opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the insurance company is meritorious. It is on account of lapse on the part of the owner of the vehicle that the award was finally passed against the appellants. The appellants were required to satisfy the award immediately after it was passed. The insurance company was absolved of its liability to pay the compensation. It is only after considering the copy of the route permit, Annexure A-1, produced on record along with the appeal, which was verified by the counsel for the insurance company and found to be genuine that the liability of the award has been shifted on the insurance company. On that account, it would be reasonable in case the Insurance company satisfies the FAO No. 4455 of 2009 3 award as it was passed by the learned Tribunal but would be liable to pay future interest thereon from today onwards. The appellants shall be liable to pay interest from 4.4.2009 till today. This is kind of costs on the appellants for the lapse committed before the Tribunal or for acceptance of application for additional evidence filed with the appeal. The amount deposited by the appellant in this court shall be transferred to the MACT, Gurgaon, for disbursement to the claimants. The appellants are directed to deposit the balance amount of interest required to be paid by them with the Tribunal within four weeks from today. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 11.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs Judge (Refer to reporter)