t=` ITrmE rmEGrm cOuRT ®F slKKEM : GANGTOK (avil Appellate Jurisdiction) MACApp Nos.04 & 05 of 2009 The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.., 573, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi. The Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Pirancl`i Orricc : M, G. MCH.cj, Gangtok, East Sikklm. versus Shri Pawan Moktan, S/o Late Buddha Moktan Ms. Parbil Moktan, D/o Late Buc!cjha Moklan, All FVo Indira Bye Pass, Lingding Busty, P.O. & I'.S. Gancjlok, East Sikkim. Mrs. Kanta, W/o Shri Daya Chand, 1857/A, Kotla, Mubarak Pur, New Delhi. For Appellants r `1 •.... Al)pella,1ts ..... Responclents : Mrs. Laxmi Chakraborty, Advocate with Ms. Manju Rai, Advocate. ForRespondentNos.1to2 : Mr. Ajay Rathi, Advocate with Ms. Sushma Pradhan, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : None appears. BEFORE : HONrBLE MR. JUSTICE S. P. WANGD[, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE La..st clate of hear.ing I, 13L05-2010 DATE OF JUDGMENT : 17-05-2010 _EEI •ia ``` I/ivpe-al=- fry I us D a M E N IT _ i .--. : ------ I i- - I The facts and c.irci`uiistaiices of the aroresaicl 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 deaths had occurred in the very 'accident involved in that case, lhey arc not bclng dealt wltli lo avolcl repelillon. In M^C^pp no.4 of 2009 arising out of the 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), the mother of 'respondents no.1 and 2, and in MACApp no.5 of 2009 arising out of the judgment dated 19-12-2006 in M.A.C.T. Case no..20 of 2006 of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East & North Sikkim at Gangtok, the compensation has been sought for i'n respect of the death of the deceased Buddha Tamang (Moktan) who was the husband of the deceased Hem Kumari Lama (Moklan) and the father of respondents no.1 and 2. In all the 3 (three) cases, the primary witness is the same Mrs. 'Shrijana Pradhan, wife of Mr. Pawan Moktan, the respondent no.1, who hacl appearecJ as PW2. The FIR in these 2 (two) cases is the very same one involved in MACApp no.3 of 2009. The grouncjs set up ,by the appeuants seeking to iriipugn the awarcJ in all lhe t:hrec appcLlls clrc conimon, i.e., llic veliicle lhal: met with the accicjonl. I)eing a privale car, had bc.cn hirecj out \:o tlic cleceasecJ, cincl lhis; ljeiiicj a violtilion c>r thrl |7il.iii,c; fDr uilt lL 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 apiJly in equal force in lhc?.se 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 I-espondents rio.'J. and 2 within a pcrlod of 30 days with intei-esl computed from the date of the claim till it is finally paid to the claimants. Failing to comply with an additional 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 h e I-e i ll . 5` a. No order as to costs. ^ coijy or llic jurJgmclil L]e scnl lo ll.`e coui-I below ror \ information and compliance. 7. The records of the court below be returned forthwith. . /. -'' cs. pnd.a;gd-„ Judge 17-03-,010 .