THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2005 of 2003 JUDGMENT: One Mr. Mohd. Jani, husband of the 1st respondent and father of respondents 2 and 3 was proceeding by walk from Cotton Market towards Santhra Market at Nagpur on 05.01.1998 at 7:00 am. A motorcycle bearing No.NGW 5331 owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the appellant dashed against him resulting in multiple injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Nagpur and he died on 07.01.1998 while undergoing treatment. Respondents 1 to 3 filed O.P.No.1208 of 1998 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation. It was pleaded that the deceased died on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. The 4th respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, entered appearance. He filed a written statement opposing the O.P. However, it is stated that he is not liable to pay the compensation, since the vehicle is insured with the appellant. The appellant filed a written statement denying its liability. It was pleaded that the rider of the motorcycle did not have valid licence, when the accident occurred and in that view of the matter, it is not liable to pay the compensation. Through its order, dated 06.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and apportioned the same among respondents 1 to 3. Hence, this appeal. Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submits that his client had placed oral and documentary evidence, to prove that the rider of the motor cycle did not possess valid driving licence and still, the Tribunal fastened the liability upon them. Learned counsel further submits that an insurance company cannot be held liable, in case the conditions of the policy are violated. Sri P.Radhiva Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased on account of the same was proved beyond any pale of doubt and that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation by applying the relevant parameters. Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that there existed an insurance policy covering the motor cycle and that the plea of the appellant that the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence is not correct. On behalf of respondents 1 to 3, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were filed to prove their case. Though the 4th respondent entered appearance, he did not adduce any evidence. On behalf of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were filed. The occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased on account of the injuries received by him, were proved beyond any pale of doubt. The documents pertaining to registration of the case, such as F.I.R., post-mortem report, were filed. The deceased was doing fruit business hailing from Nizamabad and in fact, he died in the course of his trip to Nagpur for fruit business. Though respondents 1 to 3 stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken it as Rs.3,000/- per month and deducted one-third of it towards his personal expenditure. Thus, the annual dependency was taken at Rs.24,000/- and multiplier ‘16’ was applied, since the deceased was aged 40 years. An amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded to the 1st respondent towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- to respondents 1 to 3 towards loss of estate, and Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses. The total came to Rs.4,16,500/- and it was restricted to Rs.4,00,000/- as claimed by respondents 1 to 3. This Court does not find any serious flaw in the computation of compensation. The slight possibility to redo the exercise by applying the multiplier ‘15’ could not materialize, since the quantum of deduction must also be varied. The only point seriously urged before this Court is as to the liability of the appellant to pay the compensation, on the assumption that the rider of the motor vehicle, who is none other than the son of the 4th respondent, did not posses valid driving licence. This plea of the appellant was based upon the correspondence, it has undertaken through Exs.B.4 and B.5. Through Ex.B.4, the appellant addressed a letter to the licencing authority at Raipur on the basis of the particulars possessed by the 4th respondent about the driving licence. The appellant did not state the nature of reply said to have been received by them to Ex.B.4. On the other hand, a letter said to have been received from the licencing authority at Nagpur, marked as Ex.B.5, was filed. There is no denial of the fact that Ex.B.5 does not contain any seal. Further, when the licencing authority is said to be from Raipur, it is just un- understandable as to how an authority from Nagpur can answer the query. The last submission made on behalf of the appellant is about the quantum of interest. The Tribunal awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed in many cases that the rate of interest in the cases of this nature must not exceed 7% per annum. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed, by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7% per annum. In all other respects, the order passed by the Tribunal is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 09.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2005 of 2003 Date: 09.11.2011 JSU