HSGH COU_RI_OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR SinaieBench : Hon'bleShriDiiiDRaosahebDeshmukh.J. fljscelianeous Aispea! ?C5 No.1060 of2007 aeiiant Non-aooiicant No.3 The United india insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, The United India insurance Company Limited, in front of Gopi- Talkies, Raigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) Versus Kalapram S/o Tulsiram, aged 50 years, occupation dependant, Ganeshwati, wife of Kaiapram, aged 45 ysars, Occupation dependant, Both by caste Ganda, resident of Viilage and Post Saraitoia, Tahsil Gharghoda, Disirict Raigarh (C.G.) -Mr '-•lai 3. Shambnudas Mahant, S/o Kamaidas, Caste Panika, aged 50 years, Occupation Vehici®Owner, resident of Viilage and Post Saraitota, Tahsi! Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) 4. Chaindas Sidar, S/o Anand Ram Sidar, Caste Gond, agsd 22 years, Occupation Vehicle Driver, resident of Village Gare, Post Saraitoia, Tahsi! Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) iicant No.1 & 2) '<5 seiiants • Jiiscejianeous Appea! (C) !Mo.1085 of 2007 Kalapram S.'o Tulsiram, agsd 52 years.occup^tjon dependant, ^ ''•.'• Ganeshwatl, Wife of Kalaoram, aged 47 years, Occupation dependant, Both by caste Ganda, resident of Vi'iage and Post Saraitola, Tahsil Gharghoda,B!9{rict Raigarh (C.G.) 1. Sharnbhudas Mahanf, S/o Kamaidas, Caste Panika, aged 52 years, Qccupation Vehicle Owner, resident of Viltage and Post Sai-aitoia, Tahsii Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) ~L Chaindas Sidar, S/o Anand Ram Sidar, Caste Gond, aged 24 years, Occupation Vehicie Driver, resident of Viliage Gaare, Post Saraitola, Tahsil Gharghoda, District Ralgarh (C.G.) The United India insurance Compsny Limited through Branch Manager, The United India insurance Company Limited, in front of Gopl Talkies, Ralgarh, District Raigarh (C.G.) les 'r^^anf • < i ^w^'^i 5i+ » (inM.A.(C$No.1050/2007) Shri H..B. Agrawai, Senior Advocate with Shri C. K. Sahu, counse! for the appellant. ^ ^ Shri Santosh Kumar Tlwari, counsel for respondents/claimants No.1 & 2. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with. Shri Indrasen Sahu, counsel for respondents N0.3&4. (!n M.A. (C) No.1085/2007) Shri Santosh Kumar Tivi/ari, counsel for the appeiiants/cSairnants. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Shri indrasen Sahu, counsei for respondents No.1&2. Shri H. B. .Agrawa!,Senior Advocate with Shri C. K. Sahu, counsel for resDondent No.3. (Passed on this 17 day of February, 2009) This order shaii govern Pv1.A.(C)No.1050 of 2007, an appeal by t'ne insurer and M.A.(C) No.1085 of 20Q7.an appeai by the claimants. Both appeals arise out of the award dated 24-04-2007 passed by the Motor Aceidents Cteims TTibuna!, Ralgarh in Claim Case No.34,'2007 (henceforth "the Tribuna!") whersby iiabiiity to pay comperisation of Rs.2,71,000/- £••'' '' . , . aiong with interest @ 6%per annum from the date of appiication till realization wss fastened on the appeliant/insurer. The Tribunal further directed that in the event of non-payment of cempensation and the interest awarded thereon before 25 June, 2007, the rnsurer shali also be liable to pay penal interest @ 10% per annum. .^t-K-s-^ e; (2) The soie ground urged by iearned Ssnior Advocate for the appeiianti'snsurer in M.A.(C)No.1050 of 2007 is that by carrying the deceased as a passenger in the troiiey, a goods carriage, a fundamental breach of essentia! condition of the poiicy of insurance has been estabiished, and therefore, the Tribuna! was not justified in fastsning iiabiS'ity on t'ne insurer to pay compensation. It was also urged that in defauit of non-payment of compensation aiong with interest payabie thsreon, imposltion of pena! interest virtually amounts to impositicn of penalty which is not statutority envisaged and prescribed under the Motor Vehicies Act. Reiiar.ee was piaced on Nationa! Inswance Co. Lttt., Vs. (3) Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, Searnsd counse! for the appeitants/ciaimants .in M.A.(C) No.1085 of 2007 on!y argued that the Trisuna! did not award any amount towards ioss of estate. (4) Shri Rajeev Shrivastava with Shri Indrasen Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 in M.A.(C.)No.1050 of 2007 and for respondents No.1 & 2 in M.A.(C.)No.1085 of 2007 argued in support of the impugned awara. (5) Havsng considered riva! submissions, i have perussd the record as also the impugned award. A perusal of the written statemsnt fiied by the appeiiantfinsurer does not show ffist defence of breach ofpolicy as urged by Isarned Senior Counsei for ihe appeiiant before thls Court in iVi.A.(C.)No.1050 of 2007 was taken by the insurer. !n this view of the matter, the first ilmb of argument advanced by Isarned Senlor Counsei for the appaiiant before this Court in MA.(C.)No.1050 of 2007 must faiS. So far as the Isstlimb of the argument advanced by iearned Senior Counsel TLiman< -/)- for the appeilant before this Court in M.A.(C.)No.1050 of 2007 is concerned, in vievc of the deceision rendered in National insursnce Co. Ltd., Vs. Keshav Bahadur and othsrs (Supra), the retrospective enhancement of Interest by the Tribunai for defauSt of non-payment of cornpensation togethsr with interest payabie thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penaity which is not statutoriiy envisaged and prescribed. in the llght of above decision, Imposjtion of higher rate of interest @ 10% in the event of non-payment of compensation with interes{ within the stipulated period, is contrary to law and is liabie to be set aside. /££\ \\Ji So far as the argumsnts advanced by Shri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsei forthe appeliants/ctaimants in M.A.(C) No.1085 of 2007 Is concerned, a perusal of the impugned award shows that whiie av/arding compensation of Rs.2,66,240/-, the Tribunai awarded Rs.10,000/-to each cialmant under the head ioss of !ove and affection. In my considered opinion, vhat has been awarded to the ciaimant is already In excess of what shouid have been awarded. !n this view of the matter and the facts and cireumstances of the case, 1 am not inclined to award any amount towards loss of estate. (7) !n the result, the M.A.(C.)No.1050 of 2007 is partiy allowed and fhe order passed by the Tribunai wlth regard to direction of payment of penal interest @ 10% per annurn if compeDsandn is not deposited along with interest payab'e thereon by the insurer before 25 June, 2007 is set aside. So far as M.A.(C.)No.1085 of 2007 is concern^djt fai!s and is accordlngly dismissed. aavs ^^ ukh