R.M.Prasad, J.

1. This appeal at the instance of insurance company is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.1999 passed in Claim Case No. 17 of 1997 by the 6th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patna awarding compensation of Rs. 1,34,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim case to be paid within one month and further directing that if the amount is not paid within the said time, the rate of interest will be increased from 6 per cent to 12 per cent from the date of filing of the claim till the date of realisation, besides providing for the manner of payment of the compensation amount to the claimants.

2. In short, the relevant facts are that on 21.11.1996 the deceased Sahdeo Pal was coming from his kirana shop on a cycle and was standing near the tea-stall of Murti Singh and in the meanwhile, truck No. BEN 6111, which was driven rashly and negligently, dashed him resulting his death at the spot. His brother Surya Narain Pal, who was sitting in the tea-stall saw the occurrence and gave information to the police and accordingly Pandarak P.S. Case No. 76 of 1996 under Secs. 279 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code was registered. The claimants are his widow and minor children.

3. The Tribunal on detailed consideration of the evidence awarded the aforementioned compensation, against which the present appeal has been filed.

4. The only question raised on behalf of the appellant company is that the liability fixed upon the appellant company by the Tribunal is erroneous and contrary to the statutory provision as the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid licence. In support of this, the learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the report from the D.T.O., a photocopy of which has been annexed as Annexure 1, which was enclosed with the petition (Annexure 2) filed before the Tribunal, as claimed.

5. I find it difficult to accept the said submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The claimants have produced the copy of the driving licence, which was marked as Exh. 4. Perusal of the impugned order shows that no evidence to prove the alleged report (Annexure 1) was produced and thus, the learned Tribunal has found that there is no other evidence to suggest that the driver had no valid licence.

6. It is not disputed that the alleged report (Annexure 1) was never proved and marked as exhibit. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the trial court that the papers proved that the truck was being driven by a driver having licence and the truck had all valid papers including the insurance certificate valid up to 7.12.1996.

7. It is really unfortunate that in such matters appeals are filed just to keep the claimant deprived of the legitimate claim for years together. In the instant case, the widow and the children have been kept deprived of the meagre amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal now for almost six years and, further the insurance company has also been made to suffer by payment of additional interest beyond 6 per cent on account of the delaying tactics adopted by the authority by filing appeal on above frivolous ground to assail the validity of the judgment.

8. Under such circumstance, this Court finds it to be a fit case to hold the Regional Manager through whom this appeal has been filed liable to pay additional amount of interest. Accordingly, this Court directs that the additional amount of interest, i.e., beyond 6 per cent to be paid by appellant company to the claimant shall be recoverable from the salary/perks of the Regional Manager. Further, this Court finds it to be a fit case for awarding costs of Rs. 5,000 (rupees five thousand) to be paid by the Regional Manager of the company from his own pocket to the claimants.

9. The appeal is, thus, dismissed with the aforesaid direction and costs.

10. It seems that there was an order for release of the statutory amount passed