The main legal point established is that the insurance company cannot absolve its liability based on the driver's fake license and dishonored premium cheque without proving negligence on the owner's part.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has impugned the award dated 18th May, 2012 passed in Claim Petition No.76/10/08 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted the compensation of Rs. 1,02,956/- along with interest @ 9% per annum to the injured/claimant.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 01.01.2008 at about 10.00 pm when the injured/claimant Sudhir Kumar Jha was helping Suresh Kumar in reversing his TATA 407 bearing registration No.HRP-12-2680 at main road near AW Block near Mill Building, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, Delhi, a Canter bearing registration No.HR-38-L-8704 came at a very high speed and hit Sudhir Kumar Jha and also middle back portion of TATA-407 bearing registration No.HP-12-2680 with a great force. As a result of said impact, the petitioner fell down on the road and received grievous injuries.

3. Claim Petition No.76/10/08 has been filed by the claimant/injured. After inquiry, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,956/- under the following heads:-

Under the head	Compensation granted by Tribunal
Pecuniary damages (special damages): a) Medical expenses b) Loss of income c) Special diet expenses d) Conveyance charges	Rs.2,498/- Rs.10,548/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Non-pecuniary damages (general damages): e) Pain, suffering, mental shock and trauma	Rs.70,000/-
TOTAL	1,02,956/-

4. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondents. The claimant/respondent No.1 had appeared through counsel, Mr. O.P. Mannie. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 failed to appear despite service.

5. The quantum of compensation has not been challenged by the appellant/insurance company. The main contentions raised on behalf of the appellant/insurance company are that:-

(i) The driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle on verification was found to be fake.

(ii) The cheque given by the insurance company towards premium was dishonoured.

(iii) The interest @ 9% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is contrary to the decision of Apex Court in Rajesh Vs. Rajbir Singh, 2013 (6) SCALE 563.

(iv) The learned Tribunal should not have awarded the counsel fee and out of pocket expenses.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has contended that in this case on verification, the driver of the offending vehicle was found holding a fake driving licence. Thus, the insured as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy is not liable to the compensation amount. It has also been contended that the cheque given by the insured towards premium of the Insurance policy was dishonoured, thus the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable at all to pay the compensation even to the third party because it did not receive the premium and the remedy of the claimant was only against owner/driver of the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has further contended that in view of the decision of Apex Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh’s case (Supra), the learned Tribunal should not have awarded interest @ 9% p.a.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company has also raised the issue of awarding Rs. 30,000/- as counsel fee and Rs. 5,000/- as out of pocket expenses in favour of the claimant counsel. It has been urged that in view of the decision of this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanti Devi, decided on 30th July, 2012 in MAC.APP.No.645/2012, Tribunal cannot award counsel’s fee unless and until there is a prior agreement between the client and counsel with respect to Court fee and the same is filed on record.

8. I shall now deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the Insurance Company. The first and second contention relate to the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in view of the fact that driver was holding a fake driving licence and c