JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Ms. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle as well as Ms. P. Ghatak, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents. None appears for the respondents No. 5 and 6 when the matter is called out for hearing. 2. The appellant herein, as stated, is the owner of the vehicle No. AS-01-DC-4614 (Tripper Truck) for rash and negligent driving of which the accident occurred on 24.02.2014. The said vehicle dashed one Hrishikesh Datta, aged about 45 years, who succumbed to the injuries that he received from the accident. 3. The essential facts leading to the accident involving the said vehicle, death of Hrishikesh Datta and the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle by the respondent No.5 are not in dispute, inasmuch as the tribunal has recorded that the insurance company did not deny the insurance policy as proved by the claimant-petitioners. After recording the evidence, by the impugned judgment and award dated 28.04.2016 as delivered in T.S. (MAC) 43 of 2013, the tribunal [Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Tripura, Dharmanagar] has awarded a sum of Rs.13,65,482/- but liability of paying the said awarded sum has been shifted to the appellant within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment with interest @ 6% per annum and in the event of making the said payment within the stipulated period, the said amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of the judgment till realization. 4. Being aggrieved thereof, the owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the legality of the said finding inasmuch as the said vehicle was under valid insurance coverage provided the respondent No.5. The reasons so assigned for shifting the liability of payment can be had from the paragraph 17 of the impugned judgment where it has been observed as under: “the incident took place on 24.02.2012 within the period of insurance policy. Insurance policy is a policy by which liability of the insured vehicle was taken by the insurer subject to some conditions and one of the conditions is that it must be driven by a driver having valid driving license and it must have a proper registration and it must have proper road permit. In this case it is proved that at the time of the accident the offending vehicle has valid insurance. In this case it is proved that at the time of the accident the offending vehicle has valid insurance. But from Exhibit-4, I find that the vehicle did not have any valid registration. At the time of issuance of insurance policy the vehicle had proper registration but after expiry of registration on 30.06.2011 renewal of registration was not made and no tax token was proved in this case. So in this case it is not proved that at the time of accident the vehicle had proper registration though insurance policy covers the period of accident. Since it is not proved that the offending vehicle had valid registration the liability of the owner will not be shifted to the insurance company” 5. Ms. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that a copy of the receipt acknowledging the payment of the tax and registration certificate had been produced but those were not brought in the evidence formally by the appellant. As a matter of abundant caution, the appellant has filed one application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for accepting those papers as the additional evidence. All the originals have been filed before this court along with the said application. 6. Ms. Ghatak, learned counsel for the claimant respondents did not raise any objection in accepting those evidence and in passing the appropriate judgment on perusal of those records. 7. Ex-facie the judgment of the tribunal is incorrect and it suffers from serious misconception of law as the registration of vehicle is one thing and payment of the tax is other. If the tax is not made, the registration is not automatically revoked or cancelled. A procedure has been prescribed in the Motor Vehicles Act how to realize the tax from the vehicle owners. If the vehicle owners despite due notice from the competent authority for payment of the tax fails to pay the tax, the Registering Authority has recourse to cancelling the registration certificate of the said vehicle. But this is not the case here. Only on the face of the police report, the said finding has been returned. From perusal of the original records as placed before this court, this court is convinced that at the relevant point of time the offending vehicle had the valid registration and tax was also paid from time to time. But this is not the case here. Only on the face of the police report, the said finding has been returned. From perusal of the original records as placed before this court, this court is convinced that at the relevant point of time the offending vehicle had the valid registration and tax was also paid from time to time. Therefore, despite no objection raised by the insurance company in this regard, the finding that has been returned by the tribunal is held perverse and as consequence is set aside. 8. Having held so, this court is of the considered view that the insurance company is under obligation in terms of Section 125 of the Indian Contract Act, in view of the subsistence of the insurance policy, to pay the said amount. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned finding is set aside directing the respondent No.5, L & T Insurance company to pay the entire sum of the awarded amount within a period of 2 (two) month from today. However, this court is constrained to observed that the penal interest as imposed @9% is beyond the authority as provided by Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence the claimant respondent will not be entitled to get this penal rate of interest @9% on the awarded sum. Therefore, the respondent No. 5 shall pay the entire awarded amount with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 31.05.2013 within the said stipulated date and the said payment shall be made in the tribunal below. The appellant will be at liberty to receive back the deposit, as has been made at the time of filing the appeal, on proper identification and following the procedure. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. Prepare the award accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter. Copies of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties for their reference. The Registry shall return the original documents filed with the application made by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC on keeping photocopies of those documents and on taking proper receipt from the counsel who will receive the original documents for the appellant.