The Oriental Insurance. Co.Ltd. v. Manika Rani maiti & Anr.

licence on the date of accident. Mr. Singh on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has strenuously argued that the investigator of the insurance company has collected documents showing that on the date of 4 accident the driver of the offending vehicle did not have effective and valid driving license and such document is necessary to be brought on record for just adjudication of the case. On going through the written statement filed on behalf of the insurance company before the learned tribunal it is found that there is no specific averments made that on the date of accident the driver of the offending vehicle did not have effective and valid driving licence. From the document annexed to the application for production of additional evidence it is found that the application for getting the particulars of driving licence was made on 17th March 2017. The claim application appears to have been disposed on 8th February 2021. The appellant-insurance company in its application for additional evidence has not given any cogent reason as to what prevented the appellant- insurance company from producing such evidence before the learned tribunal. In the written statement the appellant-insurance company craved leave to additional written statement. However no such additional written statement was filed by the appellant- insurance company incorporating such fact before the learned tribunal. It is trite law that evidence in the form of oral and documentary are led to prove facts pleaded and as such in the absence of specific pleadings the aforesaid backdrop the application for production of 5 additional evidence under order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code being CAN 4 of 2022 stands rejected. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is also liable to be dismissed. The respondent no.1-claimant has filed the Cross Objection being COT 17 of 2022 on the ground of interest being allowed from the date of evidence of PW1 instead of from the date of filing of the claim application. Mr Roy, learned advocate for respondent no.1- claimant submits that as per the settled proposition of law the interest on the principle ought to have been allowed from the date of filing of the claim application however learned tribunal allowed the same from the date of evidence of PW1 without any basis and therefore such is required to be modified. Upon going through the impugned judgement of the tribunal it appears that the tribunal granted interest @ 6% per annum on the principle sum from the date of evidence of PW1 and not from the date of filing of the claim. I find substance in the submission of Mr Roy that the interest should have been allowed from the date of filing of the claim application. Accordingly the impugned order of the learned tribunal is modified to the aforesaid extent. The claimant is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 23,13,120/- together with interest @ 6% per annum on 6 said amount from the date of filing of the claim application till realisation of the amount. It appears that the appellant-insurance company has deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards statutory deposit vide OD challan no.999 dated

17.11.2021 and Rs. 29,06,020/- including interest in terms of order dated 04.05.2022 vide OD challan no.521 dated 19.05.2022. As the appellant-insurance company has already deposited interest from the date of evidence of PW1 till payment was made in terms of order of this court, hence the appellant –insurance company is required to make payment of a sum equaling to Interest @ 6% per annum on the principle sum of Rs. 23,13,120/- from the date of claim application till evidence of PW1. The aforesaid amount which has already deposited with learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta along with accrued interest shall be adjusted against the entire compensation amount payable to the respondent-claimant along with interest. Balance amount, if any, shall be deposited by the appellant- insurance company by way of cheque with the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta within a period of six weeks from date. Upon receipt of the aforesaid balance amount (if any) the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall release the entire compensation amount 7 deposited by the appellant-insurance company to the respondent-claimant upon satisfaction of her identity. The appellant-insurance company is granted liberty to file suit in accordance with law if so advised. In view of the above instant appeal being FMA 177 of 2022 stands dismissed. The Cross Objection being COT 17 of 2022 is allowed. All connected applications stands disposed of. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties as expeditious as possible after observing all legal formalities. (Bivas Pattanayak J.)