.•*?° "7* IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPBAL [C] N0. ^l /2008 (D.B.t N'! MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Claitaants VEHICLEACT. 1988 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through -Divisional Manager the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, 1st Ploor, Rama Trade Centre, Opposite- Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur [Chhattisgarh]. VERSUS 1; Must. Radhika @ Radha Devi Dewangan, aged about 28 years, wd/o late Moti Kumar Dewangan. --'' &c ).^.- .......fj>^ ,^^LA^ ^•y"^^ f'y" .-ii«.w.''^'£- vv^"" ^..:tt^ ^<»6.--' Driver Owner 2. < 3. Manish Kumar Dewangan, aged about 3 years, s/o late Moti Kumar Dewangan. ^- Ku. Yogita Dewangan, aged about 1 year, d/o late Moti Kumar Dewangan, (Respondent no. 2 8& 3 are minor reprcsented through mother Must. Radhika (% Radha Devi. 4. Kedar Nath Dewangan, aged about 55 years, s/o Late Makhan Lal Dewangan. Smt. Rath Devi Dewangan, aged about 51 years, w/o Kedar Nath Dewangan. All resident ofThanapara Chhal, P.S. Chhal, Tahsil - Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.). 6. Pramod Singh, aged about 26 years, s/o Jitendra Singh Rajput, R/o Ramnagar CQlony, District Hajari Bag (Jharkhand) presently r/o Deepka, P.S. Deepka, Distt. Korba (C.G.) 7. Navin Chandra Jha, aged about 45 years, s/o Shri R.N. Jha, jR/o Deepupara, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Bilaspur (C.G.). :•'>•*-, .M HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR DB: HON'BLE I.M. QUDDUSI 85 HON'BLE N.K. AGARWAL, JJ M. A (Ct No.1384 ot2008 ys. MISCBLLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 APPEARANCE: Mr. Saurabh Shanna, counsel for the appeUant. Mr. Kainal Kishore Patel, counsel for respondents 1 to 5. JUDGMENT (ORAL) (11.11.2010) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J. 1. Tliis appeal has beea filed by the Insuraiice Coinpaay agauist fhe impugued award dated 03.05.2008 passed by ffae Motor Accident Clatms Tribunal, Bilaspur, ia Claun Case No.32/2008. 2. Learried counsel for the appeUant subinits that forged Ucense has been produced before fhe Tribunal, fherefore, appUcation under Order 41 Rule 27 of tbe Code of Civil Procedure has been filed to take the verified copy of fhe driviag Ucense as additional evidence. Neifher the defence regarduig production of foi^ed Ucense was taken nor evidence fhereofwas adduced before fhe Tribunal conceraed. The appeUaat fafled to niake any grouiid to take th& aforesaid dociunent on record as additional evidence. APPBLLANT The Oriental Iiisurance Conipany Limited RESPONDBNTS Must. Radhika @ Radha Devi and 6 ofhers :!Ei.';lilii tnM.iS^f'-" '<(£.... 'i<^ ,^ Rao Therefore, fhere was no reason to inove fhis application at fhe stage of this appeat and fhe saiae is rejected. 3. In fhis appeal quaiitiun of award is uiider chaUenge. We have perused the records of the Tribunal. The Tnbuiial has awarded a total coiapensation ofRs.6,97,000/- wifh iaterest @ 6% fcom. ttie date of claua petition tffl 07.07.2008. However, after the stipulated period fhat is after 07.07.2008 fhe Tribunal has imposed penal iaterest @ 10% per annuia. 4. We are of fhe opiaion that the Tribunal has properly assessed the iacoiiie of the deceased aud has awarded just and proper coinpensation to the clatniaD.ts which catls for no interference by this Court. S. At this stage, leamed counsel for the appellant contends that fhe penal iaterest graated by fhe Tribuaal after fhe stipulated period is on higher side. 5. We are of the opinion fhat the iaterest @ 10% is not proper. Therefore, we reduce the saiue to 6% and direct that fhe ainoiuit under the award shaU carry iaterest @ .6% froin fhe date ofclaim. petition tiU fhe payiaent ofreaUzation. 7. Accordingly, fhis appeal is allowed ia part. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.KAgarwal Judge 1