NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. DINESH KUMAR ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) B. S. Verma This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act) is directed against the judgment and award dated 18-10-2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tehri Garhwal (in short the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 5 of 1998, Dinesh Kumar Arora Vs. Jabar Singh and oth ers, whereby compensation of Rs. 1, 20, 000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment against the insurance Company-appellant.

(2.) RELEVANT facts are that claimant Dinesh Kumar Arora filed claim petition for compensation of Rs. 3, 42, 000/- for the injuries suffered by him on 14-7-1997 due to rash and negligent driving of the Commander Jeep Taxi No. UP 07c-2125 by its driver in the accident which occurred near Gholapani in vil lage Dagar. Due to the accidental inju ries, the claimant was treated in differ ent hospitals and incurred expenses on various counts. The claim petition was filed against the driver, owner and the insurer of the vehicle. The driver and owner of the vehicle filed their written statement separately and contested the case. The accident was admitted but it was asserted that due to technical fail ure of the vehicle the accident occurred. The liability to pay compensation rests upon the insurer of the vehicle. The ap pellant- insurance company also filed its written statement and admitted insurance of the vehicle. The validity of driv ing licence of the driver was challenged as well as valid registration.

(3.) IT may be mentioned that the in surance Company has not obtained permission of the learned Tribunal un der Section 170 of the Act. Moreover, there is no such finding of the Tribunal that the claim petition has been filed in collusion between the claimant and the person against whom the claim has been made. In such circumstances, it is not open to the Insurance Company to challenge the award passed by the Tri bunal on the point of negligence or contributory negligence and also on the quantum of compensation in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of "national Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi and others" [ (2002) 7s. C. C. 456:2003 (1) DC 33. The appeal is not maintain able on this score. In that case, it has been observed by the Apex Court that "even if no appeal is preferred under Section 173 of 1988 Act by an insured against the award of a Tribunal it is not permissible for an insurer to file an ap peal questioning the quantum of com pensation as well as findings as regard negligence or contributory negligence of the offending vehicle. " 5. I have heard submission of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insur ance Company and perused the entire material on record. 7. In the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the award of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition is erroneous. IT was pointed out that initially the claim pe tition was dismissed for default on 25-5-1998, which was restored subse quently on 23-12-2000. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company urged that considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in view of the Apex Court Judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. etc. Vs. Patricia Jean Mahajan and Ors, etc. etc. [2002 (2) Apex Court Judgments, 100 (Supreme Court)], the rate of interest awarded by the Tribu nal be reduced suitably. 8. Considering the fact that in the course of proceedings before the Tribu nal the petitioner was not interested in prosecution of his claim and the peti tion was initially in default and consid ering the decline in the rate of interest, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be served by awarding the sim ple interest @ 6% per anuum instead of 9% per annum from the date of pe tition till the date of payment. The appeal deserves to be partly allowed on this score. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1, 20, 000/-along with simple interest @ 6% per annum instead of 9% per annum as held by the Tribunal. To this extent the impugned order stands modified. No order as to costs. 10. The amount in deposit with this Court, if any, be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal con cerned for being paid to the claimant. 8. Considering the fact that in the course of proceedings before the Tribu nal the petitioner was not interested in prosecution of his claim and the peti tion was initially in default and consid ering the decline in the rate of interest, I am of the view that the ends of justice will be served by awarding the sim ple interest @ 6% per anuum instead of 9% per annum from the date of pe tition till the date of payment. The appeal deserves to be partly allowed on this score. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1, 20, 000/-along with simple interest @ 6% per annum instead of 9% per annum as held by the Tribunal. To this extent the impugned order stands modified. No order as to costs. 10. The amount in deposit with this Court, if any, be transmitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal con cerned for being paid to the claimant. .