IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.419 of 2001 (O&M) Date of decision:21.09.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Smt. Fajri and others ...Respondents Present: Mr. S.C.Pathela, Advocate, for the appellant. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. At the trial, the evidence produced was an official from the Licensing Authority at Jaipur, when actually the licence had been issued from Jodhpur. The discrepancy was pointed out by the Tribunal to hold that the Insurance Company had not discharged the burden effectively and the evidence of the person was of no consequence. I see no reason to differ with the reasoning for taking a different view and affirm the view of the Tribunal. 2. While parting, the counsel for the insurer points out that the award has been directed to be satisfied with interest at 12% if the amount is paid within two months, failing which, the award states that the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 18% per month. The learned FAO No.419 of 2001 (O&M) - 2 - counsel points out that interest at 18% per month ought to be a clerical mistake and the same could be corrected here without having the insurer to file an application before the trial Court. I have no information whether there was any occasion for the claimant to enforce this particular clause which is an obvious mistake. There could not have been a direction for 18% interest per month. It ought to be read as 18% per annum. The learned counsel also seeks for reduction of interest from 18% to 12%, which, according to him, is in terrorem. I accede to his request and maintain the interest at 12% and delete the portion with reference to a default on a higher rate of interest at 18%. 3. The appeal is disposed of with the above observations. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.09.2010 sanjeev