F.A.O.NO. 2223 OF 2000 and 1 F.A.O.NO.2224 OF 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.NO. 2223 OF 2000 Date of decision: 19th July, 2010 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant Versus M.L.Madan and others ........Respondents F.A.O.NO.2224 OF 2000 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., .......Appellant Versus Preeti Madan and others ...........Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate, for Mr. D.P.Gupta, Advcocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. Both the appeals arise out of the same accident and dismissed with the common order. 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the validity of the licence produced before the Court. The original register had been summoned by the owner and the Insurance F.A.O.NO. 2223 OF 2000 and 2 F.A.O.NO.2224 OF 2000 Company has cross examined the witness. It was elicited that there were some corrections in the register. If the register shows the name of the driver, the document cannot be rejected to the advantage of the insurer to say that there was no valid driving licence. The Insurance Company ought to bear the responsibility of satisfying the claim of the claimants and also indemnify the insured. 3. The learned counsel states that in this case the Tribunal has awarded interest at 13% in one case and 12 % in another. The issue of interest has also gone through several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts to provision for 13%, seems on the high side. There is no justification given by the Tribunal as to why it has adopted a differential rate of interest in both the cases. I will make it uniform and provide that the awards shall be limited to the rate of interest. I reduce it to 9% and would retain all other directions contained in the award to be continued. The appeal is dismissed except with reference to the interest in the manner referred to above. [K.KANNAN] JUDGE 19th July, 2010 Shivani Kaushik