THE HIGH COURT |OF SIKKIM : GANGTOK (Civil Appe|]ate Jurisdiction) MACApp NoS.04 & 05 of 2009 The Branch Manager, Orient:al Instrrance Company Ltd., 573, Chiragpelhi, New Delhi. : The Branch Manager, Oriental InsLrance Company Ltd., Branch Office : M. G. Marg, Gangtok, Ea'st sikkim. versus Shri Pawan Moktan, S/o Lat:e Buddha Mokt:an Ms. Parbil M,oktan, D/o Lat:e Bu:ddha Moktan, All R/o lndirS Bye Pass, :i.nog.d&n8.3.uEt#gtok, East Sikkim'; Mrs. Kanta, , ¥8/£7;A:jKDoiya:Shuab:::kpur, New Delhi. : For Appellants I.... Appellants ..... Respondents : Mrs. Laxmi Chakraborty, Advocate with Ms. Manju Rai, Advocate. ForRespondentNos.1to2 : Mr. Ajay Rathi, Advocate with Ms. Sushma Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Noneappears. BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.||P. WANGDI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. Last date of hearing : 13-05-2010 DATE OF JUDGMENT = 17-05-2010 I JUDGMENT Wangdi, ACJ. The facts and circumstances of the aforesaid appeals being the same as in the case of MACApp no.3 of 2009 in the matter of Branch Manager & Anr. vs. M. K. Subba & Ors. as the cleat:hs had occurred in the very accident involved in that case, they are not being dealt with|,to avoid repetition. In MACApp no.4 of 2009 arising out of t:he judgment dated 19-12-2006 in M.A.C.T. Case no.18 of 2006 of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok, the claim has been made in respect of deceased Hem Kumari Lama (Moktan), t:he mot:her of respondents no.1,and 2, and in MACApp no.5 of 2009 arising out of the judgment dat:ed 19-12-2006 in M.A.C.T. Case no.20 of 2006 of the Member, Mot:or Accident Claims Tribunal, East I & North Sikkim at Gangtok, the compensation has been sought for in respect of the death of the deceased Buddha Tamang (Moktan) who was t:he husband of the deceased Hem Kumari Lama (Moktan) i and the father of respondents no.1 and 2. 2' In all t:he 3 (three) cases, the primary witness is t:he same Mrs. Shrijana Pradhan, wife of Mr. Pawan Moktan, the respondent no.1, who had appeared as PW2. The FIR in t:hese 2 (two) cases is the very same one involved in MACApp no.3 of 2009. The grounds set up by the appellants seeking to impugn the award in all the three appeals are common, i.e., the vehicle that met wit:h the accident: being a private car, had been hired out to t:he deceased, and this being a violation of the terms of t:he --I:,,L--`, insurance policy, the appellants-insurers could not be held liable for payment of the compensation. Therefore, the finding in respect of MACApp no.3 of 2009 would apply in equal force in these 2 (two) appeals and consequently result in them facing the same fate as MACApp no.3 of 2009. 3. In the result, these appeals stand dismissed. 4. The appellants are directed to pay the compensation awarded by the claims Tribunal in equal portions to the respondents no.1 and 2 within a period of 30 days with interest computed from the date of the claim till it is finally paid to the claimant:s. Failing to comply with an addit:ional interest of 20/o shall be paid by the appellants-insurance company. The appellants are directed t:o submit compliance report within a period as stipulated herein. 5. 6' No order as to costs. A copy of t:he judgment be sent to the court below for information and compliance. The records of the court below be returned forthwith. Judge 17-05.2010