ORDER IA No.03/2023 in MACApp. No.56 of 2023 Heard Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the applicant-Insurance Company, Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the respondent No.4-owner and respondent No.5-driver of the offending vehicle on the prayer for impleadment made through IA No.03/2023. A motor vehicle accident occurred on 16.04.2021 at about 13.45 hours near S.T. Paul's School between the deceased Pallab Banerjee, who was restarting the auto and the motor bike No.TR-01-X-8678. The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, Court No.5 has awarded a compensation of Rs.22,65,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. 10.11.2021 till its realization in full to be distributed amongst the claimant No.1-widow of the deceased and the claimant No.2-minor son of the deceased and claimant No.3-mother of the deceased in the ratio of 50%, 25% and 25% respectively to be paid by the insurance company on the strength of the finding on issue No.2 that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. O.P. No.2-son of O.P. No.1-owner of the offending vehicle had a valid driving licence and the bike was being driven by him only. 2. Prayer for impleadment of one Prasanta Das has been made by the insurance company through the instant interlocutory application on the basis of the charge sheet [Exhibit-5 & 6] adduced by the claimants. It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the insurance company that the declaration of the owner during course of investigation indicates that the vehicle was driven by one Prasanta Das. The police, after investigation, had charge sheeted the owner of the vehicle Parimal Das, who was O.P. No.1 in the claim petition and Prasanta Das, son of Sri Tapan Das of Gajaria, P.S.- A.D. Nagar, West Tripura, as accused. Sumit Das, the son of the owner of the offending vehicle Parimal Das, was impleaded as O.P. No.2 in the claim petition. 3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant-insurance company, further submits that Prasanta Das is a necessary party whose presence is required for proper adjudication of the dispute. This Court, at the appellate stage, is empowered to exercise the same powers as are available to the original Court in view of Section 107(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. 3. Learned senior counsel for the applicant-insurance company, further submits that Prasanta Das is a necessary party whose presence is required for proper adjudication of the dispute. This Court, at the appellate stage, is empowered to exercise the same powers as are available to the original Court in view of Section 107(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The prayer for impleadment is being made on the strength of a charge sheet [Exhibit-5 & 6] adduced by the claimants during trial. He also submits that impleadment of Prasanta Das would have a definite bearing on the outcome of the appeal and cross objection since the real driver of the vehicle, in the opinion of the insurance company is Prasanta Das, who was not having a valid driving licence. In that case, the liability would turn upon the owner of the offending vehicle instead of the insurance company. That would make a huge difference to the determination of the real controversy between the parties and save the insurance company from unnecessary liability. 4. Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel for the claimants, has strongly opposed the prayer. It is also argued by learned counsel for the claimants that no such plea was raised before the learned Tribunal during course of the MAC case even though the insurance company was fully cognizant of the contents of the charge sheet adduced by the claimants as Exhibit-5 & 6. As such, recourse to adducing additional evidence or impleadment by way of an amendment at the appellate stage should not be allowed. It is further submitted that the findings of the learned Tribunal are already in appeal and as such, all the parties have the liberty to canvass their respective case in support or in traverse to the findings of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, prayer for impleadment should not be allowed. 5. It is contended by Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the owner of the offending vehicle, that the declaration by the owner was to the effect that his son was driving the vehicle and he had a valid driving licence. It is further submitted that the owner has been charge sheeted and impleaded as O.P. No.1 taking into view Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. It is further submitted that the owner has been charge sheeted and impleaded as O.P. No.1 taking into view Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 6. On consideration of rival submission of the parties and after taking note of the relevant materials placed from the record, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer for impleadment at this stage should not be allowed since the insurance company was fully aware of the contents of the charge sheet during course of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal and the case set up by the claimants against the owner and his son on which the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame five issues and decided them accordingly awarding compensation in favour of the claimants holding the insurance company liable. Whether the findings of the learned Tribunal suffer from errors on any of these issues, is a matter to be decided at the time of final hearing of the case. No observation either way, therefore, is warranted by this Court at this stage on the prayer for impleadment made by the insurance company which is being rejected on the ground that the applicant has not been able to show that despite exercise of due diligence, such material or fact could not be discovered during course of the proceedings before the learned Tribunal or that it had no knowledge of this fact. The applicant on the contrary relies on the charge sheet adduced by the claimants as Exhibit-5 & 6 to support his prayer. Reliance is placed upon paragraph 16 in the decision of the Apex Court on this issue in the case of Shivshankara and Another v. H.P. Vedavyasa Char reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 358. As such prayer for impleadment is rejected. 7. IA stands dismissed. IA No.02/2023 in MACApp. No.56 of2023 Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel for the applicants/claimants, Mr. Samrat Kar Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the Insurance Company and Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The claimants seek withdrawal of the amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company i.e. to the extent of 50% of the awarded amount of compensation of Rs.22,65,000/- deposited by the Insurance company as a condition for interim stay of the impugned Award. 3. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel for the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The claimants seek withdrawal of the amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company i.e. to the extent of 50% of the awarded amount of compensation of Rs.22,65,000/- deposited by the Insurance company as a condition for interim stay of the impugned Award. 3. The learned Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 06.04.2023, has apportioned the compensation in the share of 50% to the claimant No.1-widow of the deceased and the rest 50% between the claimant No.2- minor son of the deceased and claimant No.3- mother of the deceased. Further mode have been prescribed for keeping 60% of the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants No.1 & 3 in fixed deposit for five years and the rest to be released in their favour in their bank account. The learned Tribunal has also indicated that the claimants can approach for withdrawal of the fixed deposit amount in case of necessity. As regards, claimant No.2, who is the minor son of the deceased, the learned Tribunal has directed the full amount to be kept in fixed deposit for the period till he attains 21 years or for five years whichever is later. 4. During course of hearing of this application, the claimants were allowed to file additional affidavit indicating the nature of surety/security to be submitted for securing the amount sought to be withdrawn during pendency of this appeal. Applicants have relied upon Annexure-C and D in the instant application (IA No.02/2023) for withdrawal of 50% of the awarded amount lying deposited in the Court registry. Annexure-D is stated to be valuation of one kani land for Rs.11,57,700/-. Annexure-C is a copy of the khatian No.4127 in the name of deceased Pallab Banerjee. Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the claimants, submits that these documents are sufficient security to indemnify the amount if the applicants/claimants looses in the present appeal. This Court, having taken note of the submission of learned counsel for the claimants and after noticing these documents, vide its order dated 06.10.2023, directed the Registry to send them to the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District, Agartala for the purposes of verification. A report was received from the Additional District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District which has been taken note of in the order dated 15.12.2023. A report was received from the Additional District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District which has been taken note of in the order dated 15.12.2023. It certifies the valuation of the land proposed to be charged as security for release of the part of the award amount deposited before this Court as a condition for interim withdrawal. Relevant part of the report is extracted hereunder: 'GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & COLLECTOR WEST TRIPURA DISTRICT, AGARTALA (CERTIFICATE SECTION) F.1(5)/DM/W/CERT/MACT/VOL-I/2023-24/456 Dated: 18/10/2023 To The I/C Deputy Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Tripura Agartala, West Tripura. Subject:- Regarding land valuation certificate in connection with Case No.IA No.02 of 2023 in MAC App. No.56 of 2023 as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura. Reference letter No.F.40(11)/HCT/BENCH/RFA/2023/12821, Dated:- 9th October, 2023. Sir, With reference to the subject cited above, I am sending herewith the land valuation along with the field enquiry report as seeked by your end in connection with Case No.IA No.02 of 2023 in MAC App. No.56 of 2023 filed by Smt. Mampi Goswami (Banerjee) & others vs. The National Ins. Co. Ltd. & others. The land valuation report received from Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar vide No.F.MAC App. No.56/2023/SDM/SDR/REV/2023/3733, dated 16/11/2023 is as followed:- Name of Mouja Khatian No. R.S. Plot No. Land value as per Govt. Valuation Chart 2019 (per kani) Land value increase 5% up to 2022 Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 Madhuban 4127 4336 Rs. 10,00,000/- Rs. 11,57,625/- This is for favour of your kind information & doing the needful please. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Addl. District Magistrate & Collector West Tripura District' 5. Learned senior counsel for the insurance company has strong opposition to the prayer. He submits that the appeal is likely to be heard at a very near future as Paper Book is also ready. The claimants may not be able to indemnify the amount even though they have sought to furnish surety in the form of Sale Deed No.1-10829 dated 26.09.2005 and copy of the khatian No.4127 in the name of deceased Pallab Banerjee. The claimants may not be able to indemnify the amount even though they have sought to furnish surety in the form of Sale Deed No.1-10829 dated 26.09.2005 and copy of the khatian No.4127 in the name of deceased Pallab Banerjee. It is further submitted that since an issue relating to liability of insurance company is also in question in the present appeal and in case it is found that the offending vehicle was driven by a person who was not having a valid driving licence, the liability fixed upon the insurance company will be absolved. As such, in that event, the insurance company may find it really difficult to recover the amount being withdrawn by the claimants from the security submitted in the form of Sale Deed of the property. It may also lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that in case the insurance company succeeds, the claimants undertake to deposit the amount being withdrawn with permission of the Court within a stipulated time as may be fixed by the Court upon sale of the landed property. He further submits that the claimant No.1 & 2- widow and minor son of the deceased and claimant No.3-mother of the deceased are in real hardship. As such if the amount is not allowed to be withdrawn, they may find it difficult to eke out their livelihood. 7. Learned counsel for the owner and son of the owner who is stated to be the driver of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company liable for payment of the compensation to the claimants as the driver of the vehicle i.e. O.P. No.2 was found to have a valid driving licence and all terms of the insurance policy were duly satisfied. 8. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the relevant materials placed from record. I have also taken note of the report of the Additional District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District as to the correctness of the valuation report of the immovable property sought to be submitted as security by the claimants and belonging to the deceased Pallab Banerjee. The value of the landed property has been assessed as Rs.11,57,625/- which according to the claimants covers 50% of the awarded amount of Rs.22,65,000/- in favour of the claimants. 9. The value of the landed property has been assessed as Rs.11,57,625/- which according to the claimants covers 50% of the awarded amount of Rs.22,65,000/- in favour of the claimants. 9. On consideration of the rival submission of the parties and after taking note of the valuation report submitted by the Additional District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura District and also the mode of disbursement prescribed by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that so far as the claimant No.2- minor son of the deceased is concerned, learned Tribunal had directed 25% of the total awarded amount to be kept in a fixed deposit till he attains 21 years or for 5 years, whichever is later. The learned Tribunal was of the view that the claimant No.2 would be entitled to the benefit of the awarded amount only after he attains majority or after five years whichever is later, as during his minority period, he would obviously be under the guardianship and custody of the claimant No.1-his mother. As such, this Court is of the view that no amount awarded in favour of the claimant No.2-minor son ought to be released during pendency of this appeal as his status as a minor admittedly has not changed. So far as the rest of the amount which was awarded in favour of the claimant No.1 i.e. the widow of the deceased and the claimant No.3- mother of the deceased is concerned, the learned Tribunal had awarded 50% of the compensation in favour of the widow and out of the rest 50% amount, 25% in favour of the mother of the deceased. Having done so, the learned Tribunal had also ordered 60% of the amount of compensation granted to claimant No.1 and 3 to be kept in fixed deposit for 5 years and rest of the amount only to be released in their favour in their bank account. In that case, it means that out of 50% of the amount awarded in favour of the widow of the deceased and deposited in the court, 60% of the amount of compensation in favour of the claimant No.1 is to be kept in a fixed deposit for five years. Insurance company deposited a sum of Rs.11,32,500/- i.e. 50% of the total awarded amount before the Registry as a condition for interim stay. Insurance company deposited a sum of Rs.11,32,500/- i.e. 50% of the total awarded amount before the Registry as a condition for interim stay. Out of Rs.11,32,500/-, 50% of the deposited amount would be considered to be in favour of the claimant No.1 which would come to Rs.5,66,250/-. Out of that amount of Rs.5,66,250/-, 60% of the amount i.e. Rs.3,39,750/- is supposed to be kept in fixed deposit for five years. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the rest 40% amount i.e. Rs.2,26,500/- be allowed to be withdrawn in favour of claimant No.1. On an application by the claimant No.1, before the learned Registrar General/the competent official of the Registry, the amount as aforesaid be released after due identification of the claimant No.1 within a period of 1(one) week from today. Needless to say, the certified copy of the Sale Deed shall be kept in the Registry for the purpose of indemnifying the appellant-insurance company in case they succeed in the appeal. 10. On the same principles, the remaining 40% of the amount awarded in favour of the claimant No.3-mother of the deceased i.e. 40% of 25% of Rs.11,32,500/- (i.e. 50% of the deposit made in the Registry by the Insurance Company) = Rs.1,13,250/- is to be released in favour of the claimant No.3 on the basis of the security furnished by all the claimants on similar conditions as indicated hereinabove. 11. IA stands disposed of.