Sanjay Karol, J.
1. The insurer M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., has filed the present appeal assailing the impugned Award dated 31.8.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 59 of 2006 titled as Ranjit Singh and Ors. v. Sandeep Kumar and Anr., awarding compensation of Rs. 4,05,500/- along with interest @9% from the date of the filing of the petition upto the date of payment of the awarded amount.
2. The challenge by the insurer is limited on the ground that the deceased herself was responsible for the injuries sustained by her in the accident and, as such, had contributed to the negligence attributable to the respondent Shri Sandeep Kumar.
3. The claimants i.e the husband and the children filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming compensation of Rs. 7 lacs on account of the death of their predecessor-in- interest, Smt. Parkasho Devi who died in a motor accident which took place on 9.12.2005 at Hamirpur, H.P.
4. On 9.12.2005, deceased alongwith her son Sunil Kumar and other persons was standing in front of the Amar Tex Show Room on the extreme left side of the road on the National Highway at Hamirpur, when Shri Sandeep Kumar (respondent No. 6 herein) while driving Motorcycle No. HP-22A-2843 came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased on her leg, as a result of which she fell down on the road and sustained injuries on her head and body. She was taken to the hospital at Hamirpur but, however, she succumbed to her injuries on 10.12.2005. An FIR No. 408/2005, dated 9.12.2005 was registered against the said person at Police Station, Hamirpur, H.P.
5. In the reply, the driver/owner of the vehicle disputed the occurrence of the accident. According to him the deceased, after having made some purchase from the Amar Tex Show Room ran across the road to catch the bus and while doing so she struck against the vehicle being driven by him.
6. The insurer, the present appellant, by filing a separate reply opposed the petition on the grounds that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence; the accident had not occurred due to the negligence of the deceased; there was no proof of age or income of the deceased.
7. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the death of deceased Parkasho Devi was owing to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1 while driving Motorcycle No. HP-22A-2843? ...OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? ...OPP
3. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and if so, its effect? ...OPR-2
4. Relief.
8. Opportunity to lead evidence was afforded to the parties and based on the material on record (oral and documentary), the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident, in fact had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of Shri Sandeep Kumar while driving Motorcycle No. HP-22A-2843, due to which, the deceased Smt. Parkasho Devi sustained injuries and eventually succumbed to the same. The claimants as dependants were held entitled to the compensation of Rs. 4,05,500/- towards the loss of income; funeral expenses; loss of consortium and loss of estate. The Tribunal found the driver to have possessed with a valid and effective driving licence.
9. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record.
10. The appeal has been filed only by the insurer. Importantly, the application filed by the insurer under Section 170 of the Act was dismissed by the Court below.
11. It is an undisputed position that an FIR Ext.PW-2/A dated 9.12.2005 was registered against the said Shri Sandeep Kumar and prosecution for trial of an offence arising out of the said accident is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur.
12. Shri Sunil Kumar (PW-4) has categorically deposed that on the fateful day, Shri Sandeep Kumar while driving Motorcycle No. HP-22A-2843 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed (approximately 80 kms. per hour) and hit his mother (Smt. Parkasho Devi) on the leg as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Shri Sandeep Kumar. This witness has been extensively cross-examined. He has denied the suggestion that his mother fell down of her own and the accident occurred as a result of the same. He has further denied the suggestion that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motorcycle on the part of its driver.
13. Importantly, his version stands corroborated by PW-3 Smt. Nirmal Thakur, who incidentally was also present at the site. No doubt, she has not seen the actual occurrence of the accident or has attributed negligence to respondent No. 1, but has proved the presence of PW-4 at the time and place of occurrence of the accident.
14. Importantly, the suggestion put to the witness by the driver is at variance with his deposition. His stand taken in the written statement is also at variance.
15. PW-3 has denied the suggestion put to her in the cross- examination that Smt. Parkasho Devi had fallen down on the road of her own and sustained head injury as a result thereof. No doubt, the driver Shri Sandeep Kumar while deposing as RW1, has narrated the incident as per the stand taken by him in his reply but however, it stands established from the testimonies of PW-3 & PW-4 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 6 Shri Sandeep Kumar. I see no reason to disbelieve their testimonies. They have withstood extensive cross-examination and their statement is absolutely truthful. There is no doubt about the same. The evidence led by the claimants is clear, cogent and reliable. Further, Shri Sandeep Kumar has admitted that prosecution in relation to an offence arising out of the accident is pending. It is not his case that FIR was falsely registered against him to create an evidence.
16. The Court below has correctly appreciated the material on record while returning its findings with respect to issue No. 1. It cannot be said that Smt. Parkasho Devi sustained injuries of her own or in any manner had contributed to the occurrence of the accident. The accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Shri Sandeep Kumar who was driving the vehicle at high speed.
17. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, learned Counsel for the appellant has further referred to the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. Sarojamma and Anr. : AIR2008SC3244 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.N. Subbulakshmi and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 354, to contend that the interest awarded be reduced to 6%. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is only 9%, which is definitely not on the higher side. Since the appellant can assail the award on limited ground, hence, I find no reason to interfere on this count also.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the present appeal without any merit, is dismissed.
CMP No. 434/2009
19. In view of the dismissal of the present appeal, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Counsel does not press this application with liberty to file a comprehensive application in accordance with law. Disposed of as such.