ORDER
A.S. Naidu, J.
1. This is an appeal filed Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Opp. Party No. 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant challenges the impugned Award on the following two grounds :
(i) the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid driving licence and hence there was breach of the terms of the Insurance Policy, and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
And
(ii) the quantum of compensation is in the higher side and should be reduced.
3. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, forcefully submitted that the Tribunal after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- and as the quantum is just and proper, should not be interfered with.
4. On the basis of a claim petition filed by the respondents 1 to 4, M.A.C.T. Case No. 369/975 of 1994/91 was initiated. It was averred in the claim petition that Pravakar Moharana met with an accident on 20.9.1991 while proceeding on his motor cycle. It was stated that Mini Truck bearing registration number OSF 3241 caused the accident resulting in the death of Pravakar. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, late Pravakar was working as a Carpenter and the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.50/- per day, but according to the claimants, he was earning Rs. 75/- per day. Of course there is not cross-objection/claim with regard to the quantum.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents filed, I find that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration all the materials available on record and has arrived at a conclusion that the deceased as a skilled Carpenter was earning Rs. 50/- per day. Hence, I do not find any justification to interfere with the said finding. Similarly, taking the age of the deceased into consideration, application of 16 multiplier appears to be just and proper. Therefore, I do not find any error in the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1,95,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal and confirm the said finding also. But then, awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum appears to be in a higher side and after hearing the counsel from both the sides, I am inclined to reduce the same to 9% per annum.
6. So far as defective driving licence is concerned, as has been settled in the case of AIR 2002 SC 1419, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation amount to the third party and if there is breach of any terms of the contract i.e. Insurance Policy, it is open for it to realise the said amount from the owner.
7. Keeping in view the ratio of the decision aforesaid, I remand this case so far as the question of defective driving licence is concerned, to the Tribunal with the direction that the Tribunal shall issue notice to the Insurance Company and the owner and decide as to whether driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid driving licence on the date of accident. If on inquiry, it is found that, in fact, the driving licence was a fake one or that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, it would be open for the Insurance Company to realise the awarded amount from the owner. It is further made clear that in the said inquiry, the claimants shall not be noticed and the inquiry shall only be confined between the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle.
8. With the observations aforesaid, the Misc. Appeal is disposed of, It is directed that the Insurance Company-appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- payable to the claimants together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and not 12 per cent, as directed by the Tribunal from the date of application i.e. 9.10.91 till the date of realisation. The said amount shall be paid within a period of two months hence. If the amount is not paid within the time stipulated, the same shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent. After the amount is deposited the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants as per the stipulations made by the learned Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment which remained unchanged. The amount deposited in this Court shall be returned to the Insurance Company on proper application by an Account Payee Cheque.
9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.