^ -< ^)-- IN THE HIGH COURT'OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc, Appeal No APPELLANT Defendant No.3 '_t^=l^ RESPONDENT Claimant No. 1 RESPONDENT Cloiaiaat No.2 RESPONDENT Claimant No.3 RESPONDENT Claimant No<4 RESPONDENT Clainiant No.5 RESPONDENT DefendaatNo. 1 RE8PONDENT Defendant No.2 ^^ ./.•<M] ^'•^\€^ ^y '^^' (K_ /^ The Unitelndia Inszirance Conipany Ltd<» Ambikapur(Surguja), Through Divisional Manager^ Divisional Office, Korba (C.G.). -Versiis - ^ ^ Sint. Son Kuinari^ 50 years., Wd/o Late Ram Singh. Shri Raghunafh Siagh, 35 years^ S/ o Late Ram Sia.gh. : ^< Shi'i Kiinver Singh, 32 years,, <- S/ o Late Raixi Siagh. ^e^ Shri Shivnafh Singh, 3 1 years^ S/ o Late Ram Siagh- i. ^ Shri Jadunafh, 32 years, S/ o Late Ram Singh. , AU R/o ViUage- Sarbhoka, Post- Nagpur, Police Station & Tahsil ~ Manendragarhs Distt. Koria (C.G.). ^G Shri Rajesh Kumar yadav, 25 years, S/ o Shri Sarju Yadav, Driver, R/ o Kantorn Dafai, Haldibadi, P.S. Chmuid, District - Koria (C.G.). Driver- 7. ^ Smt. Sitara Deviy 45 years, W/ oShri Sadaaaiid Siagh, R/o Hira Nagar Dafai, HaMdibadi, P.S. Chirmiri, TahsU- Maiiendragarh, District- Koria (C.G.). - Owiier - / /' ^ APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILA8PUR DB: HON*BLB I.M. QUDDUSI & HON»BLER. L. JHANWAR, JJ, M. A. No. 182 OF 2006 Vs. RB8PONDBNTS Snit. Sonkuinari aad others MISC. APPBAL U/8 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLBS ACT. 1988 APPBARANCB: Mr. Maaish Awasfhy, counsel for fhe appeUant. Mr. Azad Siddiqui counsel for respondent 1 to 5 . Mr. Saaay Kzimar Verma, counsel for respondent no.7 ORDBR (ORAL) (07.12.2010) Per I.M. QUDDUSI. J 1. This appeal has been filed by the Insuraace Compaay agamst the impugned award dated 28,03.2005 passed by fhe Addl. Motor Accident Clauiis Tnbunal, Maaendragarh, District Korea in Claim Case No.18/2003 on fhe ground of breach ofpoUcy. 2. Brieffacts of the case, as per fhe version of fhe claimaiits, are that ou 22.6.2002 at about 10 p.m. deceased Ram Siagh was returaiag to his viUage Sarbhoka on cycle after completing the duty. At fhat time, one Jeep, haviag registration No. C.G.16-ZA/0609 (old No.M.P.27/6479) which was beiag driven by respondent No. 6 Rajesh Kumar Yadav, ia a rash aad negUgent nianner, dashed fhe cycle of fh.e deceased, as a rcsult of which, he sustaiaed grievous APPELLANT The United India Insuraace Company ^^^^ 9 ^.;'. 'S^ I. v^^ injuries aad he was admitted ia Chirfmiri Hospital, where he died on 23,6.2002 durmg fhe coiirse of fareatEnent At fhe time of accident, fhe deceased was aged about 50 years. He was workiag as Timber Mason (Mistri) ia S.E.C.L. Chirixnid aad was eaming Rs. 14,000/ - per inonfh. The offendiag Jeep was owned by respondent No.7 aiid was iasured wititi fhe appeUaat. Respondents No. 1 to 5 beiag legal heirs aad dependents of fhe deceased filed a clafcax appUcation for award of coinpensation to fhe tune of Rs.10,95,200/- on vadous heads. 3o The Tribunal has awarded a total comipensation of Rs.4,90,000/- to fhe claimaats with a further direction fhat it shall carry iaterest @ 9% per aanuia if fhe amount is paid withia 2 months from tihie date of fhe award, failing which, it 'shaU cany penal uiterest @ 15% per aanuia froni fhe date of filing offh^ claim petition tiU its realization. 4. The contention of learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat is fhat ftie driver was not having the valid and efiFective driviag Ucense and fherc was breach of fhe conditions of fhe Insurance PoUcy. 5. We have heard learaed counsel for the pardes and have perused fhe pleadiags aad rccord. 6. The Tribunal has found tihat fhe Insuraace Compaay has produced fhe report of fhe Investigator as Ex.C/1 aiid Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhargava, Licence Clerk ofR.T.O., Raipurwas exammed as defence witness ia order to estabUsh that the driviag Ucence No.R/9084/96 was not issued by fhe R.T.O. Raipur to fhe driver of fhe vehicle. But copy of fhe driviag "!VS%^S^S^^M.: .;>iEfe:^ .^..^"^ ^ kni iN» 8. licence, authenticity ofwhich, was to be examined, was not produced on record acid fherefore fhe same could not be exhibited. Therefore, it caanot be said fhat the driviag licence, which was got examiaed and verified by fhe ioivestigator, was a forged one and the same was not issued ia fhe name of non-appllcaat No.l Rajesh Kuinar Yadav. The Licence Clerk of fhe R.T.0. Raipur, has deposed fhat concemed Ucence register was not beiag properly laamtaiaed ia the of5ce of fhe R.T.0. Raipur, Thus, ia absence of fhe copy of fhe driving Ucence and the version of fhis witoaess, it cannot be said that fhe Licence No.R/9084/96 was not issued by fhe R.T.O. Raipur. On penisal of the record, we do not find aay copy of fhe driviag Ucense on fhe basis ofwhich fhe oJG5cial of R.T,0., Raipur, could give stateiaent fhat such a driviag Ucense was forged and it was not issued from fhe office of R.T.0. However, at this stage, leamed counsel for fhe appeUaiit subniits, it appears fhat duruig iavestigation fhe iavestigator of fhe Insuraxice Conipaay, could have traced the Ucense niiniber issued m fhe name ofrespondent No.6/driver. On a close scrutiny of fhe evidence on record, we are of fhe considered opinion that there was no basis to say fhat fhe Licence bearing No.R/9084/96 was not issued to the driver. Therefore, fhe Tnbunal has nghtiy decided fhe issue to fhe efifect that the Insiiraace Conipaay has faUed to prove fhat fhe driver of fhe ofifending vehicle was not having the valid aad ejffective driviag license at fhe tune of accident However, we find substaace m the contention of leamed counsel for the appeUaat that the penal iaterest imposed to ..T^'/"-S^: ^> the extent of 15% per anmim is excessive. Once 9% iaterest was awarded on fhe amount iavolved ia the award, it was not proper on fhe part of the Tribunal to award penal iaterest Therefore, we aUow this appeal ia part, set aside fhe part of fhe unpugned award by which, penal iaterest of 15% per aiinum has been imposed. The appellaaf shaU pay the simple interest @ 9% per anniim fix>m ffae date of filiag of fhe claioi petition till fhe paynient is niade. The remflining conditions of fhe award of fhe Tribunal shaU reBiain ia tact, 9. In fhe result, fhe appeal is aUowed ia part. The impugned award dated 28.03.2005 is modified to fhe above extent. No order as to cost - — Sd/- I.M. Quddusi Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge Rao/Thakur