ORDER
L. Mohapatra, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment/ award dated 28.12.2002 passed by the learned Member, 2nd M.A.C.T. (S.D.), Berhampur in M.A.C. No. 424/2000 (632 of 1999) directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 6,35,000/-with interest at the rate of 8%, per annum from the date of application till realisation.
2. In course of hearing of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant raised three issues, namely liability of the insurance company to pay compensation in a case where driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is found to be fake, quantum of compensation directed to be paid as well as the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal. After hearing of the learned counsel for both parties for sometime, the Court suggested for a compromise and on instruction learned counsel appearing for both parties agreed upon the quantum of compensation as well as interest to be paid thereon. So far as liability of the insurance company is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that as per decision of the Apex Court, the insurance company should be given liberty to recover the award amount from the insured.
3. In view of the above it is only necessary for this Court to decide the question as to whether driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake one or not. This question has been dealt with by the Tribunal in Issue No. 3. On verification of the records it is found that the police papers, such as seizure list and charge-sheet marked Exts. 6 and 9 respectively disclose that Nilamber Swain, driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving licence No. 816 of 1989 and the same was valid up to 29.4.2001. The appellant proved that certified copy of the said driving licence which indicates that it had been issued from the office of the Licensing Authority, Ganjam basing upon the original Driving Licence No. 88 of 1984 issued from the Licensing Authority, Koraput as well as Driving Licence No. 42/87 issued from the office of the Licensing Authority, Kalahandi. Certified copy of the Driving Licence No. 88 of 1984 issued from the Licensing Authority, Koraput is in the name of the said driver. However, Ext.D, the certified copy of the Driving Licence No. 42/87 issued from the office of the Licensing Authority, Kalahandi is in the name of Bhagaban Bhoi. The Tribunal though considered this aspect of the contention of the appellant found that since driving licence issued from the Licensing Authority, Koraput which is the basis for issuance of Driving Licence No. 816 of 1989 was in the name of driver of the offending vehicle, Nilamber Swain, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. It appears that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that there cannot be two original driving licences issued by different authorities in the name of same person. The seized driving licence clearly indicates that the same had been issued on the basis of the two original licences issued by two different authorities from two different districts. In view of the above, grave doubt arise as to whether driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid licence or not. I am therefore of the view that the insurance company should be permitted to recover the award amount from the insured in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Ors., reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and Ors. reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5301.
4. Now coming to the question of quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest to be paid thereon, both the parties agree that compensation be reduced from Rs. 6,35,000/-to Rs. 5,85,000/- and the rate of interest be reduced from 8% to 7%.
It is, therefore directed that the appellant shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5,85,000/- to the claimants-respondents with interest 7% per annum from the date of application till realisation. Said amount be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months. It is further directed that the appellant shall have right to recover the award amount from the insured in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the above two cases. It is further directed that in the event the insured fails to furnish security and attachment of the property is not done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of records from this Court by the Tribunal, the award amount shall be released in favour of the claimants-respondents, but the appellant shall be permitted to proceed with recovery of said amount from the insured in the proceeding before the Tribunal. The MACA is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application.