c- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.) .f' ^ M.A.(C) No. ..!!.'% {OF 2008 * n * (APPEAL VALUED AT Rs,6^37,000/-) 01^^100 BgHSS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQRVEHICLES ACT. 1988 '^"'' ?•»• '^•i'" %a'-' APPELLANT (Non- Applicant No. 2) ^s^ ,..-^'<rafy.yT''.... .1.^-"" ^^^ The new India/3gsurance Co. Ltd., Through:, Its: Divisional Manager, Divisional-OfEce, Sri Rama Trade Centre, Above UTI Bank, Bus Stand Road, Opposite Rajiv Plaza, BUaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1 (AppUcantNO.l) (Applicant N0.2) 2 .3) 3 .4) 4 . 5) 5 (Applicant No. 6) 6 Wd/o- Late Rajendra Patel, aged -33 years. Ravi Kimiar, S/O-Late Rajendra Patel, aged- 17 years, ,.^ Ku. Suman, D/O-Late Rajendra Patel, aged about -16 years, Ganesh Kumar, S/O-Late Rajendra Patel, aged about- 14 years, Ku. Jyoti , D/O-Late Rajendra Patel, aged about- 14 years, Respondent no. 2 to 5 are Minor through their Mother- Ahilya Bai (Respondent no. 1) Savitri Bai, Wd/o- Late ChhedUal Patel, aged-62 years, All are R/o-Bandhvapara Emali- Bhata, Bilaspur, Tah. 85 Distt.- BUaspur (C.G.) ^CT 2-1 fon-Applicant 7 "^ Kumari Archna, D/o- Sharad Prasad Gupta, aged about-28 years, R/o -Near Gayatri Mandir,Colony/Muhalla, Tah. 8s, Distt. BUaspur (C.G.) fon-AppUcant 8 No.2) NoorAnsary C^/o - Ijartndin Ansari, Aged about- 25 years, R/o - vUlage- Chama, Post- Pipka, P.S. Meral, Distt.- Gadhva H <Mr»!k,l_ADOt ir'fiMT |i^.su?E^-^<i~_r-fc,,i^M.i^ j The New Ltd.. Indla Assurance Co. <. RESPONDENTS Smt. Tijan Bai Lodhi (Kaushik) and others. Present : Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for the appeilant. Shri Ashok Dubey, counse! for respondents No. 1 to 6. Shri Dinesh Tiwari, counsei for respondent No.7. [NON-APPUCANT The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.. Smt. Raj Kumari and others. 'resenf : Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Anii Gulatl, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Dinesh Tiwari, counset for res.oondent No.3. (NON-APPLICANT .A.(C) N0.1118 OF 2008 The New india Assurance Company Ltd., fS; Ahilya Bai and others. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Dinesh Tiv/ari, counse! for respondent No.7. APPEALS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHtCLES ACT.1S8S (Division Bench: Hon'bte Shri IM. Quddusi & Hon'ble ShriN.K. Aaariyal. JJ.) »th Passed on 181" day of October, 2010) 'dusi. J. The above appeaf Nos. 1116/2008, 1117/2008 & 1118/2008 arising out of the same accident are being disposed of by the common order. 2. These are the insurer's appeais fited against the award dated 09-05-2008 passed in Ciaim Case Nos. 66/2006, 67/2006 and 68/2006 by Eighth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Silaspur (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby and whereunder awards have been passed awarding compensation in favour of the ctaimants holding the appellant/lnsurance Company liabie for Its paymenf. 3. The facts in brief are that on 04-06-2006 two persons nameiy Prahtad Kaushik and Rajendra Patel while returning from Bliaspur by Suzuki Motorcycle, In front of Agriculture College, Bilaspur, when they were standing and were talking with another person namely Amarnath at their extreme ieft side of the road, the truck bearing registration No. M.P. 17-0/4041, coming from wrong side, dashed them by rash and negligent driving of the driverofthe truck, as a result ofwhich a!l ofthem succumbed to injuries sustained in the said accident. 4. The claimants fiied separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') before the Tribunal concerned claiming Rs.25,75,000/- in Ciaim Case No. 66/2006, Rs. 34,42,000/- in Claim Case No.67/2006 and Rs.33,75,000/- in Claim Case No.68/2006 respectively for the death oftheir bread earner in the said accident. 5. The iearned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence adduced, materiai available on record and submissions made by the parties, has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,43,400/- in Claim case • .•l':"<;??9^n| No. 66/2006, Rs.4,57,000/- in Claim Case No. 67/2006 and Rs. 6,37,000/- in Claim Case No. 68/2006 respectively, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition. The amount is directed to be paid within two months failing which the rate of interest would be 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petltion till its realization. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appeliant/lnsurance Company raised two grounds: (1) Ail the three deceased persons were traveling by Suzuki Motorcycie and, therefore, the learned Tribunat has erred in hoiding the driver ofShe truck in question solely negligent for the said accident. (2) The learned Tribunal has erred in awarding penal 7. We have perused the record of the Tribunal. The deceased persons were standing at the time of accident ai their extreme ieft side of the road, and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be held that the driver of the motorcycle contributed to the cause of accident and the learned Tribunal has correctly held the truck In question responsible for the said accident. 8. However, learned counse! appearing for the appellant/lnsurance Company is correct in submitting that the learned Tribunal has gone beyond its jurisdiction in awarding penai interest. 9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Hational Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Keshav Bahadur and others; reported in (2004) 2 SCC 370, has held that - Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. 10. In view of the above, the appeals are partly allowed to the above extent and now the amount of award is payable by the appeilant af 6% fiat rate of interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till its reatization. No order asto costs. Sd/- I.M.Quddusi Judge Kvr Sd/- <.Agai Judgs