HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELANEOUS APPEAL No.4629 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning the quantum of compensation as excessive and exorbitant and also its liability for payment of compensation, National Insurance Company Limited filed this appeal against the order in O.P. No.511 of 1994 dated 06-09-1997 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna – cum – II Additional District Judge, Krishna at Vijayawada. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 14-06-1994 at about 4-15 PM, while the deceased was proceeding on TVS-50 CC Moped bearing No.AHJ-7723 from Kanur towards Vijayawada, at Yanamalakuduru road, the lorry bearing No.AP16 – U – 5756 belonging to respondent No.2, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against the Moped of the deceased, as a result, he fell down on the ground and the lorry dragged him and his Moped to certain distance killing him on the spot. On complaint, a case in Crime No.64 of 1994 was registered against the driver of the lorry and investigated into. Deceased had a lorry and a cement agency and had also agriculture and on that he was earning Rs.5,000/- a month. Hence, the claimants herein, who are wife, children and mother of the deceased, claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. (b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and the appellant herein - respondent No.3, Insurance Company, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimants. 4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the deceased Yelamanchili Sambasiva Rao died in a Motor Vehicle accident on 14-06-1994 in a Motor Vehicle accident on 14-06-1994 due to rash and negligence of the Driver/R.1 ? 2. What is the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of the accident ? 3. To what amount the petitioners (claimants) are entitled towards compensation and from whom ? 4. To what relief ? 5. To prove their case, claimants got examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of the Insurance Company, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.B-1 to B-5 were marked. 6. Based on the evidence on record, treating the income of the deceased at Rs.1,500/- per month and applying multiplier 12 as he was 41 years at the time of accident, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- to the claimants with interest at 12% per annum against all the respondents making them jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of its liability and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal as excessive and exorbitant, this revision is filed by the Insurance Company. 7. Heard Sri Ravi Sankar Jandhyala, learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Insurance Company, and Sri Movva Chandrasekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, and perused the material on record. 8. Now the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants towards death of the deceased in the accident is excessive and exorbitant ? 2) Whether the Insurance Company, appellant herein, is not liable for payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal ? 9. It is a case of death of a 41 years old person and the Tribunal has taken his income at Rs.1,500/- per month, which cannot be said to be high, as such, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or exorbitant. Furthermore, admittedly, no permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act was taken by the Insurance Company for filing this appeal and for that reason also, the appeal is not maintainable. Hence, even without going into the merits of the case, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 23, 2010. PV