THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.346 OF 2011 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.1470 OF 2011 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard. 2. Both the appeals arise out of a common accident, which has occurred on 02.09.2000 at about 7.00 P.M. M.A.C.M.A.No.346 of 2011 arises out of the order in O.P.No.349 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Cuddapah, where- under for the injuries suffered by the petitioner therein a compensation of Rs.50,000/- was granted whereas the another appeal arises out of the order in O.P.No.667 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Cuddapah, where-under for the death of the deceased Venkata Ramana as against the claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, a compensation of Rs.1,88,000/- was granted. 3. The case of the petitioners was that when the deceased and injured petitioner were returning by walk and when they reached Vandadi, the jeep bearing No.AP 04 B 4742, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against them, as a result of which, the deceased and the injured received injuries. The vehicle was insured with the appellant herein. Consequent on the death of the deceased Venkata Ramana, a claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- was made by the dependants of the deceased and for the injuries a claim of Rs.2,00,000/- was made by the injured. The contention of the appellant herein is that in the First Information Report, the number of the jeep was given as AP 04 B 306, which was not insured, but subsequently by managing the police officials during the course of investigation, the jeep bearing No. AP 04 B 4742, which was insured with the appellant, has been involved and therefore, it is a case where false claim was made against the insurance company and the vehicle, which was insured with the appellant, was not involved in the accident. 4. The contention raised before the lower Tribunal on this aspect was not considered. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact in C.C.No.650 of 2000 the driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP 04 B 4742 was prosecuted. Apart from the above fact, the evidence of PW.2 also supports the same. The charge sheet after due investigation and recording of the statements of the witnesses clearly shows that the vehicle bearing No. AP 04 B 4742 was involved in the accident. Though, RW.3 is said to have conducted a separate investigation at the instance of the appellant, the evidence said to have been gathered by him is not placed before the Court and the report, which is said to have been submitted to the Insurance company, is also not part of the record. There is no basis as to how he could opine that the vehicle bearing No. AP 04 B 306 was involved. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the appellant since the investigation done by the police appears to be credible and supported by other circumstances. Evidently, the person, who gave the complaint appears to be an illiterate and therefore, there may be an error in noting the registration number and even educated person feels it difficult to note down so many numbers of the registration of the vehicle since sometimes the numbers are not clear and sometimes they were missing in some particulars. Therefore, on that ground, the insurance company cannot avoid the liability. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the reasons given by the lower Tribunal are acceptable and rightly held that the offending vehicle is AP 04 B 4742, which is insured with the appellant. 5. So far as the claim for compensation for the death of the deceased is concerned, the lower Tribunal has considered the income as only Rs.1,500/- per month and taking the age as ‘40’ years applied the correct multiplier and it does not call for any interference. 6. So far as the injuries to the petitioner in the other case is concerned, though doctor was examined, the lower Tribunal has granted lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. As can be seen from the record, he seems to have suffered from some grievous injuries. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances without considering the nature of the disability or anything, the lower Tribunal found that it will be reasonable and proper to grant a lumpsum compensation of Rs.50,000/- which in the circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration the fact that the injured was a layman with agriculture living, the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal requires not to be interfered with. However, the lower Tribunal has granted interest at 9% per annum, but it is reduced to 7.5% per annum keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court. With the above modification, the awards of the lower Tribunal are confirmed. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are allowed in part. Each party shall bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 19.07.2011 INL