KOTHARI, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 29. 7. 1999 of M. A. C. T. , Raisinghnagar, deciding the Claim Case No. 136/1997.
(2.) IN an accident which took place on 30. 8. 1997 at 7. 30 a. m. when the jeep No. RJ-13-C-4230 being driven by respondent No. 5 Prem Kumar turned turtle and the same was being driven in rash and negligent manner and as a result of the said accident, one Shri Moti Ram, aged 35 years, died. The Tribunal after arriving at a finding of rash and negligent driving of said jeep driver proceeded to compute the compensation for the said deceased Moti Ram. The Tribunal computed the compensation of Rs. 5,96,339/- taking the monthly income of Rs. 3000/- for the said person who was doing the work of agriculture and applying the multiplier of 17, the total compensation was arrived at Rs. 5,96,339/ -. However, the Tribunal has not awarded any interest on the payment of said compensation, but directed the said compensation to be paid in the form of fixed deposit with nationalized bank. The said payment is said to have been made in 2002 after the stay granted by this Court on 7. 12. 1999 was vacated after hearing the concerned parties on 10. 1. 2002. Mr. Sanjeev Johari, learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company in the first instance submitted that since, the jeep in question though registered as a private vehicle was being driven for hire and reward, the Insurance Company was not liable. He also prayed that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence. He also submitted that the compensation award by the Tribunal is excessive. As against this, learned counsel Shri N. L. Joshi appearing for the claimants submits that there is no evidence on record by which it could be shown that the jeep in question was being driven for hire and reward and the only statement relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that AW. 1 Dinesh Kumar wherein he has stated that since, accident happened nobody paid rent and that he knew the driver of jeep Prem Kumar for some days and he used to run the said jeep from the place near bus stand. He also submits that these averments are not enough to establish that the jeep in question was being plied for hire and reward. As far as the question of the driver not holding a valid driving licence is concerned, he submits that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh &ors. (2004 (1) ACJ 1)= (RLW 2004 (2) SC 161), it is not open to the Insurance Company to escape its liability on this ground. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and upon perusal of the record, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has no force and the same deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) THE defendants including the Insurance Company could not establish on record that the jeep in question was being plied for hire and reward and thus there was any violation of the condition of the Insurance Policy. THE said averment of AW. 1 Dinesh Kumar alone stated above does not establish that on the date of the accident, the said jeep was being plied for hire and reward. As no evidence of any hire charges paid to the jeep owner/driver came on record the Tribunal was justified in holding the Insurance Company liable. As far as issue of valid driving licence is concerned, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra), the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation in question. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that even though they have not filed any cross appeal since, the Tribunal has not awarded any interest on he compensation awarded by it, since the accident in question took place on 30. 8. 1997 and the claim petition was filed on 25. 10. 1997 and was decided on 29. 7. 1999 and the claim amount in question was paid only somewhere in 2002, in view of the said legislation being a beneficial legislation, the Tribunal ought to have awarded some interest on the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. He relies upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in Ramesh Chandra vs. Randhir Singh & Ors. (1990 ACJ 777), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 110-CC of old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 akin to Section 171 of new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 held in Para 6 of the said judgment as under:- " 6. We have heard counsel for the parties and have perused the appeal papers, in particular regard to the limited nature of appeal of the truck owner. Section 110-CC, as it stood on the date of the accident provided that where any Court or Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under the Act such Court or Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf. The caption of the provision is "award of interest where any claim is allowed. " the question of award of interest is dependent on the claim being allowed. Should the claim be not allowed, the question of grant of interest would not arise, and if awardable, it is in addition to the amount of compensation. The Court or Tribunal, in these circumstances, should determine, in the first instance, claim for compensation and in the event of its being allowed can further exercise the discretion to grant simple interest in terms thereof, but as an additive to the amount of compensation. So the addition of interest to the compensation, by judicial discretion, is sequential in the eye of law and no claim in that regard, in our view, specifically need be laid in so many words in the claim petition. The grant of interest, in our view, is not dependent on any pleading in that regard and can even be orally asked if the contingency arises. Thus, in our view, there is no substance in ground No. II of the S. L. P. and the attack to the grant of interest is negatived. " In view of this, not awarding any interest on the compensation in favour of the claimants by the Tribunal does not appear to be justified. Accordingly, it is directed that the compensation in question shall be payable to the claimants with interest @ 7. 5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition on 25. 10. 1997 till the date of the money being deposited in fixed deposit in the bank. The said amount of interest shall be paid in the Saving Bank account of the concerned claimants by account payee cheque. ;