Serial No. 48 Suppl Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CMAM 21/2015 CM(4436/2023). NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER CHANDIGARH. …APPELLANT(s) Through: Mr. Aatir Kawoosa, Advocate. VERSUS RUCHI SINGH AND ORS. Through: Mr. T.M. Shamsi, DSGI with Mr. Faizan, Advocate and Ms. Shagufta Maqbool, Advocate Mr. P.S. Ahmad, Advocate. …RESPONDENT(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE. ORDER 24-04-2025 01. In the instant Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988, (for short ‘the Act’) award dated 27th of December 2014 (for short ‘impugned award’) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) has been thrown challenge to by the National Insurance Company-appellant herein. 02. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant appeal as emerging from the record would reveal that a claim petition came to be filed on 19.08.2005 by the legal heirs of one Sepoy Ajay Kumar Singh (for short the deceased) under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal stating therein that on 20th of August 2003, the Army Vehicle bearing registration No. 02D 148496N met with an accident with a private vehicle bearing registration number JK-02 R 4797 being driven rashly and negligently as a result whereof, the deceased sustained serious injuries resulting in his death. 03. The Tribunal, after entertaining the claim petition, issued notice to the respondents in the claim petition, being the driver/owner of the private vehicle, the cleaner of the said vehicle, as also the Insurance Company -appellant herein, with which the said private vehicle was insured with. 04. Except the Insurance Company-appellant herein, the other respondents in the claim petition did not appear before the Tribunal or to contest the same, resulting into their setting ex-parte. 05. The Insurance Company-appellant herein opposed the claim petition by filing the detailed reply. 06. Upon the pleadings of the contesting parties in the claim petition, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- “01. Whether on 20.08.2003 Sepoy A.K Singh, while driving Army Vehicle Bearing No. 02D148-496N on its way from Srinagar to Kangan, met with an accident, whereas he being hit by Vehicle No. JK02R-4797, while being driven by Responder No. 1 at a high speed, with the result that Army Vehicle, by smashing cabin from driver's side, was thrown back away on the edge of the road due to the impact It stopped due to the axle/differential getting struck against the retainer wall of the road. As a result, the driver cabin was smashed in and the driver, Sepoy AK Singh, was stuck between the steering drivers seat and the cabin, he was badly mangled and later scummed to his injuries in 92 BH Srinagar, The accident having taken place due to the negligence of the private vehicle? OPP; 02. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether, the petitioners legal heirs are entitled to the compensation, if so to what extent and from whom? OPP; 03. Whether the claim petition in the present form is not maintainable: OPR; and 04. Relief: OP Parties.” 07. The claimants in the claim petition, in order to prove issues 1 and 2 supra, led evidence thereof consisting of claimant 1 and witnesses namely Ruchi Singh, Kour Baksh Singh, Sharseem Singh,Vijay Singh and Naib Subedar A.P Singh, whereas the Insurance Company-appellant herein examined one witness namely Imtiaz Ahmad Shah, as its witness. 08. The Tribunal, upon the conclusion of the trial/ enquiry in the claim petition, in terms of the impugned award, held the claimants 1 to 3, legal heirs of the deceased to receive compensation to the tune of Rs. 14,01,000/- along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 7% per annum, also awarded Rs. 5,89,254/- as damages to the claimant, Union of India, along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum qua the damage of the Army Vehicle. 09. The impugned award came to be passed against the Insurance Company-appellant herein. 10. The Insurance Company-appellant herein, feeling aggrieved of the impugned award, has maintained the instant appeal on multiple grounds urged in the memo of appeal. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The first ground urged in the memo of appeal is that the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the insured vehicle unless it was established that the said vehicle was plied by the driver with valid document/s including valid and effective driving license and since the owner and driver of the vehicle in question did not appear and were set ex parte by the Tribunal, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed before the Tribunal by the appellant herein that the driver had no driving license at the time of accident, however, the said application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on one hand and on the other hand, no issue with regard to the driving license was framed, and that thereafter, another application was filed before the Tribunal by the appellant for summoning of the investigating officer of the FIR registered in the matter for producing the vehicular documents, but no orders were passed there in the said application Record reveals that the Tribunal indisputably framed the aforesaid issues on 10th of October, 2009 in presence of appearing counsel for the parties yet neither the insurance company/ appellant nor its counsel at the time of framing of said issues or else thereafter till the Insurance Company/ appellant herein led its evidence sought framing of issue qua the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle, instead the Insurance company/ appellant herein in essence consented to the framing of the issue by the Tribunal on 10th of October, 2009 and allowed the trial/ inquiry of the claim petition to proceed qua the said issues even without reserving any right there for re-framing or framing of the additional issues qua the driving license in the matter. Although, record reveals that there had been an application filed by the Insurance Company appellant herein on 19th August, 2014 seeking amendment of the written statement to plead the plea of the validity of the driving license, the said application stands dismissed by the Tribunal on 20th of October, 2014 which dismissal order, however, was never challenged by the Insurance Company- appellant herein. In view of the aforesaid factual position obtaining in the matter, it would not lie in the mouth of the Insurance Company-appellant herein to contend that the Tribunal erred while not considering its plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed of a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Record would also reveal that the Insurance Company-appellant herein did not even sought leave of the Tribunal in terms of Section 170 of the Act. 12. In so far as the next ground urged in the memo of the appeal by Insurance Company-appellant herein is concerned, it is being contended that the amount of compensation awarded to the legal heirs of the deceased is excessive, unjust and awarded without any basis. Perusal of the record available on the file in general and evidence led by the claimants in particular reveals that the Tribunal has rightly and correctly assessed the amount of compensation payable to the claimants having regard to the evidence led before it by the claimants without their being any credible or clinching evidence led by the Insurance Company-appellant therein in rebuttal thereto. The ground thus, in this view of the matter as also in presence of the provisions under Section 170 of the Act is mis-conceived both on facts as well as law. 13. In so far as third ground urged in the memo of appeal is concerned, it is contended by the Insurance Company-appellant herein that the amount of damages awarded to the claimant Union of India on account of the damage to the Army vehicle is concerned, the Tribunal did neither frame any issue in this regard nor did the Union of India lead any evidence thereof. However, record reveals that the said plea of the Insurance Company-appellant is factually incorrect and an issue seemingly has been framed by the Tribunal in this regard and that evidence has been led by the Union of India consisting of an amount qua the loss of the said vehicle amounting to Rs. 5,89,454/ and a witness namely Naib Subaidar A.P. Singh, Technical Expert, have had been examined by the Tribunal in this behalf. The ground urged thus, in this view of the matter, is as well grossly misconceived on facts and factually unfounded. 14. In so far as the last ground urged in the memo of appeal qua the award of penal interest awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants is concerned, the perusal of the record reveals that simple interest has been legally and validly awarded upon the awarded amount to the claimants while taking into the cognizance and consideration of the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in case reported in 2013 ACJ 1403. 15. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the instant appeal is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. The part of the awarded amount which is claimed to have been deposited before this Court by the Insurance Company-appellant herein is directed to be released in favour of the claimants strictly in tune with the mandate of the award subject to proper verification and identification. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 24-04-2025 Showkat Khan