1 (MAC No. 427 of 2023) 2025:CGHC:41845 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 427 of 2023 1 - The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Its Manager, T P Hub, Divisional Office, Rama Trade Center, Iind Floor, U T I Building, Shiv Talkies Chowk, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - Smt. Sarita Barle Wd/o Late Tumesh Barle Aged About 23 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Bodhipara, P.O. Tedhadhaura, Tahsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 2 - Ku. Jaishree Barle D/o Late Tumesh Barle Aged About 01 Month, Caste- Satnami, Minor Through - Mother Sarita Barle, Aged 23 Years, R/o Village Bodhipara, P.O. Tedhadhaura, Tahsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 3 - Shiv Prasad Barle S/o Late Nanhe Prasad Barle Aged About 62 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Bodhipara, P.O. Tedhadhaura, Tahsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 4 - Munni Bai Barle W/o Shiv Prasad Barle Aged About 53 Years Caste- Satnami, R/o Village Bodhipara, P.O. Tedhadhaura, Tahsil Mungeli, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh 5 - Rahul Ram Yadu S/o Komal Yadu Aged About 26 Years R/o National Corporation Park G.E. Road Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver) 6 - Sushma Devi Thakur D/o Sanjay Singh Thakur R/o H.No.51/904, Lakhe Nagar, Karmchari Colony, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner) --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Digitally signed by ADITI DIWAN KAIWART Date: 2025.08.22 15:53:35 +0530 2 (MAC No. 427 of 2023) For Appellant :- Mr. Dashrath Gupta, Advocate For Respondent Nos.1 to 4 :- Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent No.5 :- Mr. R.L. Rajak, Advocate For Respondent No.6 :- Mr. M.L. Sahu, Advocate SB - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board 19.08.2025 1. The appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of impugned award dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure A/1) passed by learned I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh, by which the claim application of the claimants filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 has been allowed and the liability has been fastened upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.13,07,600/- along with 7% simple interest per annum from the date of institution of claim application till actual realization of the amount and with penal clause that in case the amount is not paid within a period of 30 days from the date of award then the amount shall carry penal interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of award till its actually paid. 3 (MAC No. 427 of 2023) 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and effective driving license on the date of incident and there was breach in terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. He would also submit that the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in inflicting the penal interest at the rate of 9% and it ought not to have been awarded. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents would support the impugned award. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. The only plea taken by the insurance company before the learned Claims Tribunal is that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and therefore, the insurance company is not responsible to pay any compensation. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding that the appellant-insurance company has not led any evidence to demonstrate that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving license on the 4 (MAC No. 427 of 2023) date of incident. As such, neither any specific plea has been taken nor any evidence has been led on behalf of the insurance company to prove that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In that view of the matter, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fasten the liability upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. So far as the plea of infliction of penal interest at the rate of 9% is concerned, it appears to be on the higher side and is hereby set aside, the insurance company will pay 7% simple interest per annum from the date of institution of claim application till actual realization of the compensation amount. 6. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. No cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge @d!t!