IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH (13TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.5421 OF 2008 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, R.S.Road, Kurnool … Appellant And: Smt.B.Padmamma and others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.5421 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 04.07.2008 in O.P.No.481 of 2006, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VII-Additional District Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Mahabubnagar, wherein the said claim application filed by respondents 1 to 4 was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,99,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the death of the deceased Lingamaiah who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 10.05.2006. The 1st claimant is the wife and claimants 2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased. According to them, on that day, the deceased went to his fields and found the sand loaded tractor bearing No.AP 22 U 4927 with a trailer bearing No.AP 22 U 4928 passing through his fields and he went across the tractor asking the driver to stop the same, but the 5th respondent, who is owner-cum-driver of the tractor trailer, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the deceased, as a result of which the deceased died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.164 of 2006 was registered against the owner-cum-driver of the tractor. 4. The owner-cum-driver of the tractor remained ex parte. The insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked on behalf of the appellant/insurer. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor trailer by its driver, the 5th respondent herein. The Tribunal further awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,99,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the F.I.R-Ex.A-1 it was stated that the deceased was hit by an unknown tractor and subsequently the tractor trailer is falsely implicated. 8. Ex.A-1-F.I.R shows that the case was registered against unknown tractor driver, based on a complaint given by Bandari Gopal, who is brother of the deceased. In the said complaint, it is stated that every night some tractors loaded with sand and stone used to go across the fields of the complainant and his brother and the deceased used to protest and prevent such passage of tractors across the fields and on the night of 10.05.2006 also, the deceased went to prevent the tractors and did not return home and on the next day, it was found that the deceased was lying dead in the fields, having been hit by a tractor. In the F.I.R, the names of certain owners of the tractors are mentioned and the name of the 5th respondent herein i.e., P.Rajender Goud is, however, not included therein. The inquest report-Ex.A-3 also shows that the apparent cause of death is due to injuries caused due to dashing of the tractor against the deceased. Ex.A- 5 is the confession-cum-recovery panchanama whereunder the driver of the offending tractor is said to have surrendered and made a confession and in pursuance of the said confessional statement, the tractor was seized. The accident occurred on the night of 10.05.2006 and the F.I.R was registered on 11.05.2006 and within one week on 18.05.2006, the vehicle was identified and the driver was apprehended and the vehicle was also seized under a panchanama ExA-5. In Ex.A-5, the crime vehicle was recovered at the instance of the driver. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer would point out that P.W.2, one of the panch witnesses under Ex.A-5, testified that he signed the panchanama at the police station, where he went in connection with some personal work. However, he denied the suggestion that the driver has not made any confession about the offence. It is to be noted that during the course of investigation, the offending vehicle was identified and the driver was apprehended within a period of one week from the date of registration of the F.I.R. Simply because, the name of the 5th respondent herein does not find a mention in the F.I.R-E.x.A-1 among the other tractor owners names, no inference of any false implication of the crime vehicle can be drawn. There is absolutely no reason as to why the 5th respondent herein should oblige the police or the claimants by surrendering himself and produce the tractor and run the risk of being sentenced in criminal case. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the tractor trailer was falsely implicated does not, therefore, merit any consideration. The evidence on record sufficiently established the involvement of the tractor trailer in the accident notwithstanding the fact that initially the F.I.R was registered referring to the vehicle as an unknown tractor. The 5th respondent, being the owner-cum-driver of the tractor and also the appellant/insurer are, therefore, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The quantum of compensation is not seriously disputed and even otherwise, the Tribunal has taken the annual income of the deceased at 18,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier ‘16’ appropriate to the age of the deceased, who was aged 40 years and deducting one-third thereof towards personal expenses, estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.1,80,000/-, which is considered just and reasonable. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of estate, making up a total amount of Rs.1,99,500/-. The claimants are, however, entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition instead of 7.5% in view of the decision of th e Apex Court in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. Subject to the above modification, regarding the rate of interest, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 10. In the result, subject to the modification in the rate of interest, which is now fixed at 6% per annum, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th December, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)