1. Dwarika Mahto, s/o Rameshwar Mahto, aged about 56 years 2. Rukwa Devi w/o v. 1. M/s Chetna Logistic Private Ltd., At Chandmari, Dist.- Kohima
Case Details
1 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No.573 of 2019 ------ 1. Dwarika Mahto, s/o Rameshwar Mahto, aged about 56 years 2. Rukwa Devi w/o Dwarika Mahto, aged about 56 years Both are resident of Village- Ghaskodih, Chuglamo, P.O.- Chuglamo, P.S. Barkatha, Dist.-Hazaribagh .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. M/s Chetna Logistic Private Ltd., At Chandmari, Dist.- Kohima (Nagaland), at present 32 Ezra Street, North Block, Kolkata, P.S. & Dist.-Kolkata (West Bengal), 700001 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through:- The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Lepo Road, within the campus of Laxmi Chitra Mandir, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Hazaribagh .... .... Respondents .... M.A. No.67 of 2021 With ------ M/s Chetna Logistic Private Ltd., At Chandmari, Dist.- Kohima (Nagaland), at present 32 Ezra Street, North Block, P.O.+ P.S. & Dist.- Kolkata (West Bengal), 700001 Through Its Manager namely Mohammad Gulam Khan, aged about 40 years, s/o Mohammad Amanullah Khan r/o Village- Tejpur, P.O. & P.S.- Chouparan, Dist. Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Appellant 1. Dwarika Mahto, s/o Rameshwar Mahto, (Father of Deceased) 2. Rukwa Devi w/o Dwarika Mahto, (Mother of Deceased) Versus Both are resident of Village- Ghaskodih, Chuglamo, P.O.- Chuglamo, P.S. Barkatha, Dist.-Hazaribagh 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through:- The Branch Manager, Lepo Road, within the campus of Laxmi Chitra Mandir, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S. Sadar, Dist. Hazaribagh .... .... .... Respondents For the Appellants For the Respondents ------ : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ 2 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. Since both the appeals have been directed against the judgment and award dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 47 of 2015 by which the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,52,800/- to the claimants; to be paid within 30 days from the date of the order by the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle and directed the opposite party no.2- -New India Assurance Company Limited to pay the said compensation amount along with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum starting from 30 days after the award to till the date of realization; with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle; being the opposite party no.1; on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts of the case is that on 24.03.2015 at about 11:30 am when the deceased- Premchand Choudhary @ Premchand Mahto along with his friend was going to Hazaribagh by a motorcycle driven by his friend- Chhoti Prasad @ Chhotelal Prasad, the offending container bearing registration no. NL-01G-5513 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the said motorcycle as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and received serious injuries causing his death soon after the accident. 3 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 4. In connection with the said accident, Barhi P.S. Case 5. 6. No. 90 of 2015 involving the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was registered. After investigation of the case, police submitted charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle namely Amit Kumar Singh. It is stated that the deceased was in service at Pune and earning monthly income of Rs.9,659/- from service and was earning Rs.5,000/- from agriculture and thus, in total was earning Rs.14,659/- per month and he was aged about 23 years. The opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle did not turn up before the learned Tribunal and was set ex-parte. The opposite party no.2- insurer of the vehicle challenged the claim application on various technical grounds and further pleaded that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident was already cancelled by the Government of Nagaland hence, on the date of accident, the driving licence was not in force and effective and thus, the driver of the offending vehicle was without any driving licence in force and the same amounts to violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy due by the opposite party no.2 in favour of the opposite party no.1-owner of the offending vehicle. 7. On the basis of the rival pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following seven issues:- 4 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 (I) Whether the present claim case is maintainable in eye of law? (II) Whether the claimants have valid cause of action for the case? (III) Whether the death of deceased Premchand Choudhary @ Premchand Mahto resulted from the alleged vehicular accident caused due to driving the offending vehicle container bearing No. NL-01G-5513 rashly and negligently? (IV) Whether the deceased himself was negligently driving the motorcycle No. JH-02F-4880 and due to his own negligence the accident occurred? If so, to what extent deceased was negligent? (V) Whether the insured owner of the offending vehicle has violated any of the terms and condition of the insurance policy? (VI) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation arising out of this motor vehicle accident and if so, as to what extent and against whom of the O.P.s? (VII) To what relief or reliefs, the claimants are entitled? 8. In support of their claim, the claimants examined two witnesses being C.W.1- Dwarika Mahto who is the father of the deceased and C.W.2- Dhanukhi Sundi was the colleague 5 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 of the deceased. Besides the oral testimony, the claimants proved the certified copy of the FIR and charge sheet of Barhi P.S. Case No. 90 of 2015 which have been marked Ext. 1 and 2 respectively. Further, they have also produced various other documents which have been marked X to X/6. The opposite party no.2 on the other hand produced one verification report of driving licence marked Y and investigation report of the investigator appointed by the insurance company marked Y/1. 9. The learned Tribunal first took issue nos. (I) and (II) together and considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that the claimants have valid cause of action for filing the claim application and the claim application brought by them is maintainable. The learned Tribunal next took up issue nos. (III) and (IV) together and considering the testimony of C.W.1- the father of the deceased wherein he inter alia stated about the accident and earning of the deceased at Rs. 9,659/- per month as salary and annual income of Rs.60,000-70, 000/- from the agricultural land but the C.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that he has not seen the occurrence of accident. The learned Tribunal also considered the testimony of C.W.2 who is a co-worker of the deceased with Enkai Wheels (India) Ltd, Pune who has stated that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.9,659/- per month. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he 6 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 reached the spot after the accident. He has read up to class- VIII. He has no document to show that he worked with the deceased. The learned tribunal also considered the documentary evidence being the FIR, charge sheet and also the postmortem report and held that the driver of the offending container was responsible for causing the accident since he was driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently in excessive speed and lost control on the brake, steering etc. causing the death of the deceased Premchand Choudhary @ Premchand Mahto and decided the issue nos. (III) and (IV) in favour of the claimants and against the opposite parties. The learned Tribunal next took up issue no. (V) and considered the admission of the opposite party no.2 that the opposite party no.2 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the offending vehicle was having permit for plying on the date of accident hence, there has not been any breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy. Relying upon the remarks made by the D.T.O. in the report submitted by the D.T.O. to the investigator of the insurance company wherein it has been mentioned that ‘as per the Government of Nagaland, Transport Commissioner’s Order, Driving licence other than smart card format are treated as cancelled with effect from December, 2014’ but the said report suggests that as per the record available in the office of District Transport Office; the 7 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 District Transport Officer, Tuensang (Nagaland) issued a driving licence authorizing Amit Kumar Singh to drive the Motor Car, LMV, HTV, HPV and the original certificate was issued on 26.06.2010 and the endorsement of HTV and HPV was added on 25.07.2013. The said driving licence was valid up to 24.07.2016. A remarks was added by the District Transport Officer, Tuensang (Nagaland) wherein, it has been mentioned that as per the Government of Nagaland, Transport Commissioner’s Order, Driving licence other than smart card format are treated as cancelled with effect from December, 2014 but the learned Tribunal ultimately, came to the conclusion that though the vehicle was insured by the insurance company but the driver of the vehicle did not have effective driving licence to ply the vehicle on the date of accident. Hence, there is a breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy by the owner and thus, gave the insurance company the right to recover the amount of compensation to be paid by it to the claimants from the owner of the vehicle. The learned Tribunal next considered the issue no. (VI) and considering the age of the deceased mentioned in the postmortem report of the dead body, assessed the age of the deceased to be 23 years having two dependents being the claimants. The learned Tribunal considered the salary certificate produced by the claimants marked X/6 which shows that the basic salary of the 8 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 deceased was Rs.6,500/- and on the basis of the same, the learned Tribunal held that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,500/- i.e. Rs.78,000/- per annum and added 40% towards future expenses and deducted half of the income towards living expenses and applied the multiplier 18 and added Rs.70,000/- under the conventional head and arrived at the compensation of Rs.10,52,800/-. The learned Tribunal next considered that since the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the driving licence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurer will pay the compensation amount with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Lastly, the learned Tribunal took up issue no. (VII) and directed the opposite party no.2- insurance company to pay the compensation amount and gave the right to recover the said compensation paid by the opposite party no.2 to the claimants from the opposite party no.1- owner of the vehicle. 10.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants in M.A. No. 573 of 2019 submits that the learned Tribunal erred by only considering the basic pay of the deceased as his income upon considering the undisputed fact remains that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.9,659/-. It is next submitted by Mr. Bharat Kumar that the learned Tribunal erred by granting interest on the compensation amount only after 30 days of the date of the award instead of giving it 9 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 from the date of filing of the claim application. Hence, it is submitted that the claim amount be enhanced. 11. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 67 of 2021 on the other hand submits that there is no material in the record to suggest that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a smart card driving licence. The report submitted by the investigator of the insurance company on the basis of the letter addressed to him by the District Transport Officer, Tuensang, Nagaland in no uncertain manner reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence and the driving licence was valid up to 24.07.2016 and nowhere, in the report, it has been mentioned that the said driving licence was not being issued with a smart card but a general remark was made that as per the Government of Nagaland, Transport Commissioner’s Order, Driving licence other than smart card format are treated as cancelled with effect from December, 2014. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru reported in (2003) 3 SCC 338, paragraph 20 of which reads as under :- “20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is 10 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where 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). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia [(1987) 2 SCC 654] , Sohan Lal Passi [(1996) 5 SCC 21 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 871] and Kamla [(2001) 4 SCC 342 : 7 C.O. No. 5 of 2014 2001 SCC (Cri) 701] cases. full agreement with the views We are expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.” (Emphasis supplied) in 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that since undisputedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was competent to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident, a mere technicality assuming for the sake of argument; though not admitting that he was not issued with a smart card driving licence, certainly, it will not lessen his skill and competence of driving the vehicle on the date of accident. Since the driver was a skilled and competent driver to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident certainly, assuming that smart card driving licence has not been issued, the same will not amount to violation of the terms and condition of the insurance policy. 11 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 Hence, it is submitted that the portion of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal by which the learned Tribunal has given the right to recover the claimed amount to be paid by the opposite party no.2- insurance company to the claimants from the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle be deleted by way of modification of the impugned judgment and award. 13. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the respondent no.3- insurance company on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer made by the appellants in both the appeals. It is submitted by Mr. Lal that the income of the deceased was his basic pay and the learned Tribunal having rightly accepted the basic pay of the deceased as his income, the impugned judgment and award does not warrant any interference by this Court on that score. It is next submitted by Mr. Lal that there was laches on the part of the claimants in prosecuting the claim application. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded interest 30 days after the date of the award hence, the said part of the impugned judgment and award also does not warrant any interference by this Court. It is next submitted by Mr. Lal, that the owner of the vehicle did not appear before the learned Tribunal and has not filed any pleadings and the judgment and award has been passed against the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle was passed ex-parte. Hence, the owner of the vehicle is not 12 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 competent to file this appeal. It is next submitted by Mr. Lal that as the owner of the vehicle has not filed pleadings before the learned Tribunal, therefore the owner of the vehicle is debarred from taking the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, it is submitted that both these appeals being without any merit be dismissed. 14. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the following points for consideration that crop up in this appeal is :- (i) “Whether the amount of compensation awarded be enhanced? (ii) Whether the tribunal ought to have allowed the interest on the compensation amount; from the date of filing of the claim application? (iii) Whether the portion of the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal by which the learned Tribunal gave the right to recover the compensation amount to be paid by the opposite party no.2- insurance company from the opposite party no.1- owner of the vehicle be deleted by way of modification of the impugned judgment and award?” 15. So far as the first point for determination regarding the assessment of the income aspect of the deceased is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by 13 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yerramma & Ors. v. G. Krishnamurthy & Anr. reported in 2015 AIR SCW 514 , paragraph nos. 13 and 14 of which reads as under:- it is not the salary of is erroneous as “13. The Tribunal on examining the salary slip of the deceased for the month of April, 2011 determined the deceased at Rs.21,168/- per month after deducting towards P.T. and other statutory deductions. Therefore, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.21,168/- per month as the salary of the deceased. The High Court in its impugned judgment and order affirmed the same. We are of the view, that on the facts and circumstances of 4 M.A. 96 of 2010 this case, the net salary of the deceased taken by the Tribunal and the High Court for determination of loss of in dependency accordance with the principles laid down by this Court in this regard. Therefore the same is liable to be set aside as it has to be properly determined by taking gross income of the deceased. It is clear that the gross income of the deceased at the time of his death as per his salary slip was Rs.26,000/- per month. Therefore, we are of the view that a just and reasonable compensation under the head of loss of dependency has not been determined by the courts below. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is vitiated both on account of erroneous finding and error in law. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.26,000/- per month. The High Court and the Tribunal have taken the net salary at Rs. 21,168/- per month, thereby the Courts below have erred in making deductions from the gross salary of the deceased towards. P.T. of Rs.200/- and other statutory deductions and therefore, arriving at Rs.21,168/- per month at the net salary of the deceased is erroneous in law. Therefore, we are of the view that both the Tribunal and the High Court have erred in not following the rules laid down by this Court in Indira Srivastava’s (AIR 2008 SC 845 : 2008 AIR SCW 143) (supra) in not taking gross income of the deceased to determine the loss of dependency. 14. The gross salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death as per salary slip produced on record was Rs.26,000/- per month and after 14 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 income of deducting 10% towards income tax, net income comes to Rs.23,400/- per month. Thus, the annual the deceased would be Rs.2,80,800/-. Deducting 1/4th of this amount towards his personal expenses by applying the principle as laid down by this Court in Sarla Verma case (AIR 2009 SC 3104 : 2009 AIR SCW 4992) (supra), the balance amount comes to Rs.2,10,600/- [(2,80,800 – Rs.70,200/- (14th of Rs.2,80,800/-)]. Therefore, the loss of dependency of the appellants by applying the appropriate multiplier of 11, according to the rules laid down by this Court in the Sarla Verma comes to Rs.23,16,600/- (Rs.2,10,600/- x 11).” (Emphasis Supplied) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the law that the gross salary less 10% towards the income tax be considered as the income of the deceased. 16. Now coming to the facts of the case, the salary slip of the deceased which has been marked X/6 shows the gross salary of Rs.9,659/-. Deducting 10% of it towards income tax, the net amount comes out to Rs.8,693.10/- and in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.8,693.10/- per month. Now adding 40% of the same towards future prospects, the amount comes out to Rs.12,170.34/- i.e. Rs.1,46,44.08/- per annum. Deducting 50% of the same towards personal income of the deceased as the deceased was an unmarried person, the amount comes out to Rs.73,022.04/-. Multiplying the multiplier 18, considering the age of the deceased to be 23 years, the amount comes out to Rs.13,14,396.72/-. Adding Rs.1,10,000/- i.e. Rs.80,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, the amount comes out to Rs.14,24,396.72/- rounded up to Rs. 14,24,397/-. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 14,24,397/-. 17. Now coming to the interest to be awarded to the claimants is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kajal v. Jagdish Chand & Others reported in (2020) 4 SCC 413 para-31 of which reads as under: - 31. The High Court enhanced the amount of compensation by Rs 14,70,000 and awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a. but directed that the interest of 7.5% shall be paid only from the date of filing of the appeal. This is also incorrect. We are constrained to observe that the High Court was not right in awarding interest on the enhanced amount only from the date of filing of the appeal. Section 171 of the Act reads as follows: “171. Award of interest where any claim is allowed.—Where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation made under this Act, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may specify in this behalf.” Normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition. It is only if the appeal is filed after an inordinate delay by the claimants, or the decision of the case has been delayed on account of negligence of the claimant, in such exceptional cases the interest may be awarded from a later date. However, while doing so, the Tribunals/High Courts must give reasons why interest is not being paid from the date of filing of the petition. Therefore, we direct that the entire amount of compensation including the 16 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 amount enhanced by us shall carry an interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment/deposit of the amount. (Emphasis supplied) it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that normally interest should be granted from the date of filing of the petition and if in appeal enhancement is made the interest should again be from the date of filing of the petition. 18. A similar view was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dharampal & Ors. vs. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208, paragraph no. 8 of which reads as under:- “ 8. As per section 171 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as ’Act’) where the claim for compensation made under the act is allowed by the Claims Tribunal, the tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate from such date not earlier than the date of making claim.” 19. Now the learned Tribunal has mentioned that the claim application was instituted on 10.06.2015 and it was admitted on 08.09.2015. The issues were settled on 13.06.2018. Perusal of the record reveals that the opposite party no.2 appeared on 10.12.2015 and filed the written statement on 25.01.2017 after taking several adjournments which fact the learned Tribunal failed to consider and the learned Tribunal itself took one and half years thereafter to settle the issues. No role can be attributed to the claimants for this delay in filing the written statement and on 17 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 settlement of issues. So, certainly, the learned Tribunal erred by denying the interest to the claimants over a period of more than one year for which the insurance company took time to file written statement and another over a year for which the learned Tribunal itself took time to settle the issues, certainly, these are not the times for which the claimants can be held responsible. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the interest is to be awarded from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. on 10.06.2015 along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. on 10.06.2015 to till the date of actual payment on the said compensation amount of Rs. 14,24,397/-. The second point for determination is answered accordingly. 20. Now coming to the third point for determination, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Tulna Devi & Ors. reported in (2009) ACJ 581, paragraph no. 6 of which reads as under:- “6. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the owner had not taken any care before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive it and that he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation qua the owner of the vehicle cannot be doubted.” has settled the principle of law in the absence of any evidence to prove that the owner had not taken any care 18 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 before the vehicle was given to the driver to drive it and that he was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation qua the owner of the vehicle cannot be doubted. 21. Now coming to the facts of the case, undisputedly, the driver of the vehicle was issued with a driving licence which was valid up to 24.07.2016 and the driving licence was issued in the year 2010 and the endorsement of HPV and HTV was added thereto in the year 2013. The issuing authority subsequently took a decision that if drivers are not having a smart card format of the driving licence then such driving licence will not be valid. There is no material in the record that the driver and the owner were aware about such notification of the Nagaland Government when undisputedly, the owner is residing in the State of West Bengal and the accident took place only about three months after such decision but even assuming for the sake of argument that the driver did not have smart card driving licence but certainly, the same will not reduce the professional competency of the driver concerned to drive the offending vehicle; who otherwise had a valid driving license to drive the vehicle concerned. 19 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 22. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that in the facts of the case, even assuming for the sake of argument that the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued with a smart card format of driving licence but since on the date of issuing of the driving licence it is undisputed that the driving licence was valid up to 24.07.2016 that is till much after the date of accident; in the facts of the case, the same does not amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 23. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that a decree having been passed ex-parte the owner is incompetent to challenge the same by way of filing the first appeal is concerned, there is no such bar in law for a person aggrieved by an ex-parte decree passed against him to file an appeal; as a judgment passed ex-parte; also amounts to a decree and a person aggrieved by a decree can file an appeal. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has no force. 24. Accordingly, the third point for determination is answered by holding that the portion of the judgment by which the learned Tribunal gave the right to recover the compensation amount to be paid by the insurance company to the claimants from the opposite party no.1 is not sustainable in law. Hence, the said portion of the judgment is set aside. The third point for determination is answered 20 M.A. No. 573 of 2019 With M.A. No. 67 of 2021 accordingly. 25. In view of the discussions made above, the impugned judgment and decree is modified to the extent by directing the opposite party no.2-respondent no.3-insurance company to pay Rs. 14,24,397/- with simple interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum; from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 10.06.2015 to till the date of payment of the same; to the claimants within three months from the date of this Judgment less the amount if any already paid by the insurance company. In the result, both the appeals are allowed on contest to the aforesaid extent but under the circumstances without any costs. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to return the statutory amount if any, deposited by the appellant of M.A. No. 67 of 2021 to the appellant concerned upon showing proper identification. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to the court concerned forthwith. 26. 27. 28. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 18th July, 2023 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)