Jharkhand High Court
Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... vs Pranay Sethi And Ors. Reported In Air ... on 2 August, 2018
Author: Rajesh Kumar
Bench: Rajesh Kumar
Misc. Appeal No. 249 of 2013
(Against the Award dated 04th day of July, 2013 passed by the
District Judge-I-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal at
Chaibasa in Compensation Case no. 38 of 2008)
........
Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Voltas House, Bistupur, Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum-700071 through its Manager Claims Ajit Sharma ....... .....Appellant Vrs.
1. Tarkeshwar Samanta
2. Kameshwar Samanta
3. Rameshwar Samanta
4. M/s R. D. Construction, L/4 Type, Plot No. 22, Road No. 18, Farm Area, Kadma, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, I/C, Rakesh Kumar Singh, s/o Late Sri Ram Singh, r/o Madhusudan Road, Uliyan, P.O. & P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, Dist-East Singhbhum
5. Naresh Ram Rewani ...... Respondents ........
For the Appellant : M/s Ashutosh Anand
and Dipak Banerjee, Adv.
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. R. P. Gupta, Adv.
For the Resp. Nos. 4 and 5: Ms. Swati Shalini, Adv.
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ........
By Court Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents-claimants as well as the respondent- owner of the offending vehicle.
The present appeal has been filed against the Award dated 04.07.2013 passed in Compensation Case No. 38 of 2008.
Claimants are sons of the deceased. Mother has died during pendency of the claim application. It has been stated in claim application that Kudrai Samanta was going by his Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. BRX-5840 with one Jiwan Tiu and his wife as pillion rider and when his motorcycle was in very slow speed near the school at village Tangrani, a Bolero Car bearing registration No.JH-05N-6311 from Seraikela side in uncontrollable speed, which was being driven rashly and negligently, dashed the motorcycle of Kudrai Samanta, which was on the left side of the road, from the front side and dragged the motorcycle to some distance. In this occurrence, Jiwan Tiu got serious injuries and Kudrai Samanta died on the spot and the driver of the Bolero Car fled away from the spot leaving the Bolero. The injured and the deceased were brought to Seraikela Hospital. On the basis of fardbeyan -2- of Raimuni Tiu, who was also a pillion rider of motorcycle, a case being Seraikela P.S. Case No.50/2006 dated 26.06.2006 has been lodged against the driver of the Bolero Car. Post mortem of deceased was done at Sadar Hospital, Seraikela. In fardbeyan, it has been stated that while they were going by motorcycle, the Bolero Car dashed their motorcycle from the front side, which resulted in death of Kudrai Samanta.
The trial court has framed various issues including issue nos. III, IV and V, which are quoted hereunder:
"(III) Did the accident occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bolero Vehicle bearing registration No.JH-05N-6311 by its driver, the O.P. No.2 resulting in the instantaneous death of the deceased Kudrai Samanta?
(IV) Whether the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of policy of the insurance and permit? (V) Has the deceased contributed any negligence while driving the motor cycle? If so, to what extent?"
Issue Nos. III and V have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant mainly for attributing the liability upon the deceased by way of contributory negligence. It has been submitted that in a motorcycle, three persons were riding. Therefore, this fact itself suggests that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. For this purpose he has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Narayan vrs. Seem Bourin & Ors. reported in (2009) 2 JCR 287. Para-3 and 4 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:
"3. From perusal of the record it appears that on the fateful day of accident, the deceased along with one more pillion rider, was sitting on the Scooter which was being driven by another person vinod Bouri. The said scooter was dashed by the offending vehicle which was a car owned by the appellant. Nothing has been brought on record that the person, who was driving the scooter, was holding a valid driving licence. Admittedly, driving Scooter with two pillion riders is not permissible in law. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that it is a case of contributory negligence.
4. In our view, therefore, certain amount must be deducted for the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and the other occupants of the scooter. If 30% of the compensation amount is deducted for the contributory negligence, the compensation amount comes to about Rs. Two lacs. Learned Counsel appearing for the parties have fairly agreed that a lump sum of Rs.Two lacs shall be paid by way of compensation to the claimants-respondents."
(Emphasis Supplied) It has been argued that deceased was driving motorcycle with two pillion riders, which is not permissible in law. It, therefore, itself suggests that it is a case of contributory negligence and in that condition, learned Division Bench of this Court has deducted 30% of compensation -3- amount for the contributory negligence. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the compensation amount should be reduced by 30% by following ratio as laid down by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Manish Narayan (Supra). This argument is against the claimants.
Learned counsel for the claimants has referred to the statement of the eyewitness, namely, Narsingh Sandil (AW-2), who has stated in his evidence that after seeing the speed of the Bolero Car, he stopped his cycle extreme left side of the road. He further stated that motorcycle driver (deceased) also stopped his motorcycle in left side of the road, but due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero, the said Bolero dashed the motorcycle and dragged it for some distance, due to which, driver of the motorcycle sustained series injuries and died on the spot.
By referring to the statement of the eye-witness namely Narsingh Sandil (AW-2), it has been argued by learned counsel for the claimants that since the motorcycle was in standing position at the time of accident, there was no contribution towards the accident by the deceased.
After some argument, the claimants have agreed for reduction of the amount of compensation to the extent of 30% to avoid any further litigation or complication.
In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants, this Court is not going to decide the contribution of the deceased towards accident as the same has been agreed, accordingly it is held that claimants are entitled for 30% less compensation amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal.
The issue No.4 is against owner of the offending vehicle. By raising this issue, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that liability is upon the owner of the offending vehicle as he was violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Section 3, 5 and 15 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which are quoted hereunder:
"Section 3. Necessity for driving licence.--(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than [a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.
(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.-4-
Section 5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of sections 3 and 4.--No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle.
Section 15 Renewal of driving licences. --
(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry:
Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal: Provided further that where the application is for the renewal of a licence to drive a transport vehicle or where in any other case the applicant has attained the age of forty years, the same shall be accompanied by a medical certificate in the same form and in the same manner as is referred to in sub-section (3) of section 8, and the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 8 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to every such case as they apply in relation to a learner's licence.
(2) An application for the renewal of a driving licence shall be made in such form and accompanied by such documents as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(3) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made previous to, or not more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government in this behalf.
(4) Where an application for the renewal of a driving licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the fee payable for such renewal shall be such amount as may be prescribed by the Central Government:
Provided that the fee referred to in sub-section (3) may be accepted by the licensing authority in respect of an application for the renewal of a driving licence made under this sub-section if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from applying within the time specified in such-section (3):
Provided further that if the application is made more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9. (5) Where the application for renewal has been rejected, the fee paid shall be refunded to such extent and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
(6) Where the authority renewing the driving licence is not the authority which issued the driving licence it shall intimate the fact of renewal to the authority which issued the driving licence."
(Emphasis Supplied) By referring above sections, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the holding valid driving licence is must for driving motor vehicle in public place.
It has been further submitted that in the present case, it is an admitted position that driving licence was issued to the driver of the offending vehicle in the year 1975, which was renewed from time to time up to 2004 and again it was renewed in the year 2009 and as such, at the -5- time of accident i.e. on 26.06.2006, the driver was having no valid licence. It has been further submitted by referring to Section 15 of Motor Vehicles Act that a person above 40 years is entitled to get renewal of the licence only on producing the fitness certificate as required under the law. As there was no renewal of licence, it can be presumed that driver was not medically fit to drive the vehicle and as such, the entire liability should be upon the owner of the offending vehicle.
It has been further submitted that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy i.e. (Ext-B) says:
"Any person including the insured:
Provided that a person driving holds an effective driving license at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license;
Provided also that the person holding an effective learner's license may also drive the vehicle and that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989."
(Emphasis Supplied) Referring to this clause, it has been submitted that since it is an admitted position that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having effective driving licence and as such terms and conditions of the insurance policy was violated, accordingly insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation rather owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager Verses Sujata Arora and Ors. reported in 2013(3) T.A.C. 29 (S.C.). Para- 8 of the said judgment is quoted hereinunder:
"8. We are also fortified in our view in the light of the two judgment of this Court reported in 2007(4) SCALE 36:2007(2) T.A.C. 398, "National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut" and 2011(5) SCALE 494: 2011(3)T.A.C. 12, "Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain and other", where in it has been held that in case it is found that the offending vehicle was driven by driver who was either holding no licence or a fake licence, then it amount to violation of terms and conditions of policy and in that circumstances, no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company."
(Emphasis Supplied) Learned counsel for the respondent No.4-owner of the offending vehicle has submitted that O.P.W. No.2-Deependra Kumar, who is partner-cum-manager of O.P. No. 1, has stated in his evidence that he has employed O.P.-2 Naresh Ram Rawani as driver of the offending vehicle -6- in the year 2003. At that time I have seen and verified the driving licence of the O.P.-2, Naresh Ram Rawani. His driving licence no. was 5258/75(professional) and at that time the same was valid. Before employing as a driver, driving test was also taken. Owner of the vehicle as well as partner of the company of O.P.-1, both were satisfied with the driving skill of the driver of the offending vehicle. It has been further stated that driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence since 1975 and it has been renewed from time to time till 2004.
Further, O.P. No.1- M/s R.D. Construction (owner of the offending vehicle) has also appeared and filed his show-cause. It has been stated that driver Naresh Ram Rewani (O.P. No.2) is an experienced driver and holder of a valid driving license to drive a motor vehicle and the said accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving and he is not responsible for the death of the deceased.
It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that as the driver in question was a very experience driver having driving experience of about 30 years and he was well competent to driver the vehicle and at the time of employing him, he was having valid driving licence and due precaution has been taken by the owner of the offending vehicle. It has been further submitted that subsequently in the year 2009, driving licence of the driver has been renewed as per the mandate of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, it has been accepted by the Licencing Authority that O.P. No. 2 (driver of the offending vehicle) was competent to drive the vehicle on the date of accident.
It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that in Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act it has been mentioned regarding necessity of "effective driving licence", while under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act word used is 'duly licensed'. Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act is quoted hereinbelow:
"149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.
(1)...................................
(2)...................................
(a)...................................
(i).....................................
(ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during -7- the period of disqualification;"
(Emphasis Supplied) Thus, use of these different words have different meaning. To emphasize on this point, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297. Relevant sub para -iii, iv, vi and vii of para-110 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:
"110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:
(i) ..............................................................
(ii) ..............................................................
(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-sec-
tion (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been com- mitted by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves de- fences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condi- tion of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.
(iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.
(v) ............................................................
(vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/ are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tri- bunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to al- low defences available to the insured under section 149(2) of the Act.
(vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case."
(Emphasis Supplied) Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Srimati Abha Sinha & Ors. reported in (1998) 2 PLJR 337. Relevant para-5 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:
-8-5. First of all, I will take up the first point raised by Mr. Chaterjee learned Counsel for the appellant that the person driving the vehicle had no driving licence on the date of accident as the period of licence already expired and therefore, Insurance Company has no liability.
I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel. From perusal of the written statement filed by the Insurance Com- pany in the claim case before the court below it does not appear that any specific defence was taken that the person driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence. No evidence to that effect was led by the appellant before the Claims Tribunal. From the petition filed un- der Order 41 Rule 27 CPC a plea was taken that driving licence of the driver was valid upto 7.10.89 while accident took place on 3.1.90. In support of that a copy of the permanent licence has been filed and annexed as Annexure-A to the said petition. From perusal of Annexure-A, it is evident that by the said licence the driver was authorized to drive the transport vehicles and the licence was valid from 8.10.86 to 7.10.89. There is endorsement of renewal of the li- cence made by the District Transport officer, Hazaribagh whereby the licence was renewed upto July, 1992. The defence sought to be taken by the appellant by relying on driving licence would not, in my opinion, improve the case of the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the person who was driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence at any point of time or the said person was not au- thorized to drive the vehicle. Admittedly, the driver who was driving vehicle on the date of accident was holding a valid driving licence duly granted by licensing authority in 1986 and the licence was valid upto 7.10.89. The driver was, therefore, authorized to drive transport vehicles and he was a licensed driver. Although there is an endorsement of renewal of the licence also as appearing in the li- cence but even assuming that there is no renewal endorsement, it cannot be said that the person driving the vehicle was not a licensed driver. It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving licence duly granted by transport authority. Merely because of expiry of the period of licence and omission of the driver to get the licence renewed it cannot be said at any stretch of imagi- nation that there is breach of condition of policy for which Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability. As stated above, the driver was authorized to drive the transport vehicles and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver and therefore, in my considered opinion, this plea of the Insurance Company to ab- solve itself from the liability cannot be sustained in law.
(Emphasis Supplied) Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has relied upon the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Divisional Manager, M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd. vrs. Smt. Nan Bai & Ors reported in (2007) 2 JLJR 264 (HC). Relevant paragraph-7, 8 and 9 of the said judgment are quoted hereinunder:
"7. The law with regard to liability of the Insurance Company in cases where driver was holding a fake driving licence, has been settled by the Supreme Court. In a recent decision in the case of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2006) 7 SCC 318], the Supreme Court held as under:
9. In the instant case, the owner has not only seen and examined the driving licence produced by the driver but also took the test of the driving of the driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle and thereafter appointed him as driver of the vehicle in -9- question. Thus, the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would not then be absloved of its liability.
8. Another decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh can also be usefully referred to in the present context. This Court in para 110 of this Judgment gave the summary of their findings to the various issues as raised in those petitions. We are concerned only with sub-para (iii) of para 110. The said sub-para (iii) reads thus:
110. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not dis- qualified to drive at the relevant time.
9. As observed in the above paragraph, the insurer, namely, the Insurance Company, has to prove that the insured, namely, the owner of the vehicle, was guilty of negligence and failed to exer-
cise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant point of time."
(Emphasis Supplied) By referring to the above judgments and sections, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that when O.P. No. 2 was employed by the respondent-company, he was having a valid driving licence. It has been further submitted that driver of the offending vehicle was a very experience driver having 30 years driving experience before alleged accident as he was having a driving licence since 1975.
It has been further submitted that there is no adverse entry in the driving licence of the O.P. No. 2. This fact suggests that O.P. No.2 was competent to drive the vehicle, although, technically he was not holding a effective driving licence on the date of accident, but subsequently his driving licence was renewed in the year 2009, which suggests that he was medically fit on the date of accident.
From the argument advanced by learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts of the present case, this Court comes to the conclusion that although on the date of accident, O.P. No.2 was not having a valid licence but he was otherwise good driver to drive a vehicle. Further due diligence has been taken by the owner of the offending vehicle, while employing O.P. No.2. As there is no adverse -10- entry in the driving licence of the O.P. No.2, it can be safely presumed that he was a good driver.
It has been settled by the Apex Court in the above judgments that the real issue to be decided, whether there is violation of the Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act or not and Whether the insurance company can be absolved from its liability or not?. The terms and conditions of the insurance policy cannot be a deciding factor. Under the scheme of the act, the liability can be avoided by the insurance company only by one of any of the factum mentioned in Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act and not otherwise.
The point raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy has been violated (as quoted hereinabove) is not sustainable and accordingly, this point is negated by this Court.
Further, the words used in Section 3 of the Act are "effective driving licence", while in Section 149 (2) the words are "not duly licensed" or "disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence".
Black's Law Dictionary Ninth Edition:
Duly:
1. In a proper manner
2. In accordance with legal requirement.
Effective:
1. In operation at given time.
2. Performing within the normal and expected standards
3. Productive, achieving a result.
Disqualification:
1. An Act of making ineligible.
Thus, Section itself is clear and embedded with theory of "fundamental breach" as enunciated by the Apex Court in case of Swaran Singh (Supra).
A license may not be effective on date of accident, but that defence is not available to insurer u/s 149 (2) of the Act.
For avoiding liability, insurer has to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was not duly licensed meaning thereby the said driver was never authorized by law to drive vehicle or he bears some legal disqualification.
-11-Further, insured has taken due care or not is deciding factor for fastening liability either upon insured or insurer.
In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that there was no negligence on the part of the owner of the offending vehicle as while employing O.P. No. 2 as a driver, owner of the offending vehicle had seen and verified his driving licence and as such, the insurance company cannot avoid its liability.
Further, issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that rate of interest is higher i.e. 9%, which has been granted from the date of filing of the claim application in the year 2008 and final Award has been passed on 04.07.2013. Therefore, for a period of 5 years, 9% interest is excessive, which is beyond the bank interest also.
At this stage, learned counsel for the claimants has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Ors. reported in AIR 2017 SC 5157 and submitted that calculation has not been made as per the said judgment.
Age of deceased 54 years, Monthly Income is Rs. 11,000/- and Number of dependent is Three, which has not been disputed by either of the parties.
As per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), appellants are entitled for 10% towards future prospect and seventy thousand towards fixed charges i.e. loss of estate, funeral expenses and loss of consortium.
As per the above parameters, the calculation of compensation as per the criteria laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra), is as follows:
Admitted Income = Rs. 11,000/-
Total Annual Income =Rs. 1,32,000/-
Less 1/3
(as no. of dependent is three) =Rs. 88,000/-
Multiplier as per age between Rs. 88,000/- X Rs. 9,68,000/-
50-55 is 11 1110% towards Future Prospect Rs. 9,68,000/- X Rs. 96,800/-
10%
Total Rs. 10,64,800/-
-12-
Deduction of 30% towards 30% of Rs. 3,19,440/-
contributory negligence as Rs. 10,64,800/-
agreed by the claimants
After Deduction Rs. 7,45,360/-
funeral expenses and loss of Rs. 70,000/-
estate
Total Rs. 8,15,360/-
So far as interest of 9%, which has been awarded by the Claim Tribunal, is concerned, nothing has been brought on record by the appellant to substantiate prevailing current bank rate of interest.
It has been observed in catena of decisions by the Apex Court that interest has to be granted as per the prevalent bank rate of interest.
Since, no material has been brought on record by the appellants regarding prevalent bank interest, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the rate of interest granted by the Claims Tribunal.
In view of the above discussion, this appeal is partly allowed with a direction to the appellant-Insurance Company that Rs. 8,15,360/- is payable to the claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, less amount already paid if any, within a period of three months from today.
In view of disposal of this Misc. Appeal, I.A. No. 5388 of 2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court Dated. 02/08/2018 Kamlesh/AFR