JUDGMENT

Sanjay Agrawal, J. - This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by Non-Applicant No.3/The New India Assurance Company Limited under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988) questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 17.10.2012 passed by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.116/2011, by which, the Claims Tribunal, while allowing the claim in part, awarded total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.3,81,796/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition till its realisation. The parties to this Appeal shall be referred hereinafter as per their description in the Court below.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 18.08.2010, the Claimant Rakesh Kumar Anant was returning to his home by his motorcycle from Jagdalpur to Narayanpur and as soon as he reached near the bridge at Kotgaon village, it was dashed vehemently from its opposite side by the offending vehicle "Indica Car" bearing its registration No. C.G.-04/HB/0843. The said offending vehicle was owned by Non-Applicant No. 2 Dr. Hiralal Thakur and was insured with Non-Applicant No.3/The New India Assurance Company Limited. At the relevant time, it was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Umesh Kashyap, Non-Applicant No.1, owing to which, the alleged accident occurred and Claimant injured badly and his right leg's femur bone got fractured apart from other multiple injuries and as such, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 42%.

3. On account of the aforesaid accident, the Claimant instituted a claim petition enumerated under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- by submitting, inter alia, that he is working as Sub-Engineer in 'Chhattisgarh Renewable Energy Development Agency' (CREDA) where he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and on account of permanent disability, he is unable to perform his duties.

4. The aforesaid claim has been contested by the Non-Applicants. Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 pleaded in their written statement that the vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged accident as the front right side of its tyre got punctured all of a sudden and the Claimant, who was coming from opposite side, has lost his control and got injured himself. It was pleaded further that since the vehicle in question was insured with the said Insurance Company and the driver of it was possessing the effective and valid driving license, therefore, in case of any liability being fastened, the same could be indemnified by the insurance company.

5. Non-Applicant No.3, the insurance company contested the claim mainly on the ground that the vehicle in question was being used in violation of its policy as the driver of it was not authorized to drive the alleged vehicle as his license was not renewed on the date of the alleged accident.

6. After considering the evidence led by the parties, it has been held by the Claims Tribunal that the accident occurred on 18.08.2010 due to rashness and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, owing to which, the Claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 42%. It held further that the vehicle in question was not being used in violation of the policy as the driver of it was possessing the valid and effective driving license. As a consequence, the Tribunal while fastening the liability upon the insurance company, awarded total amount of compensation as mentioned herein above.

7. Being aggrieved, Non-Applicant No.3 has preferred this appeal. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the award impugned as passed by the Claims Tribunal fastening the liability upon the insurance company holding that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing the effective and valid driving license and was authorized to drive the same at the relevant time is apparently contrary t