IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2997 of 2000 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant AND M. Laxmi & 5 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2997 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award, dated 14.10.1999, in O.P.No.132 of 1995, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that N. Laxmaiah was going on Moped No. AIU 7149 on 10.02.1995 at about 5.30 p.m. when TVS Suzuki motor cycle driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent to the claim came in high speed being driven rashly and negligently and dashed against the moped near Begumpet Police Station. N. Laxmaiah, shifted to Gandhi Hospital and then to Apollo Hospital with serious injuries, was in coma for three months 24 days and ultimately died on 02.06.1995. N. Laxmaiah, aged 56 years, was working as an Attender in the National Airports Authority on a monthly salary of Rs.2,634/-. His wife and three children claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The first respondent claimed to be not concerned with the offending motor cycle, while the other respondents also denied the involvement of the alleged vehicle No.AP 10F 5879 or their liability. 3. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and R.W.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9, B-1 and B-2 and X-1 to X-3 during the enquiry. 4. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly noting that the amendment in the number of the offending vehicle was necessitated due to a mistake and in view of the evidence of P.W.4 from the Road Transport Officer’s Office that it was only AP 10F 5879 which was a TVS Suzuki motor cycle, while AP 10F 5819 is a Kinetic Honda, it is clear that it was 5879 that was involved in the accident. The Tribunal concluded on the oral and documentary evidence that it was the negligence of the driver of that motorcycle that caused the accident. The Tribunal then assessed the compensation on the basis of the monthly salary of the deceased and his age as spoken to by P.W.3, an Officer from the Indian Airports Authority who is the employer of the deceased, and applying an appropriate multiplier and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, pain and suffering, etc. With reference to Ex.A-7-medical bill issued by Apollo Hospital for Rs.1,18,912/-, the Tribunal granted only Rs.30,000/- in the absence of examination of any person connected with the hospital and on the total compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 12% per annum and proportionate costs. The Tribunal gave directions about the disbursement and apportionment of the compensation. 5. The insurer of AP 10F 5879 motorcycle preferred the present appeal contending that when Ex.A-1-First Information Report specified vehicle No.AP 10F 5819 to have caused the accident, the insurer of some other vehicle could not have been made liable and the insurer also questioned the assessment of the quantum of compensation by the Tribunal. 6. Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri D. Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants are heard. 7. The point for consideration is whether vehicle No.AP 10F 5879 was involved in the accident and whether the assessment of compensation by the Tribunal has to be interfered with? 8. The evidence of P.W.4, an official from the Road Transport Officer’s Office clinched the issue before the Tribunal about the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident. It was the specific allegation since the beginning that it was a TVS Suzuki motorcycle that was involved in the accident and though there was some discrepancy in giving the number of the vehicle at the earliest point of time, in view of the specific description of the offending vehicle since inception, the mistake in mentioning the number as 5819 instead of 5879 is an obvious typographical error and the Tribunal also took note of the fact that the names of the riders of the motor cycle were mentioned without any ambiguity in the earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report. The conclusion of the Tribunal based on the probabilities arising out of the evidence on record need not, therefore, be interfered with in this regard. 9. The further conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle driver leading to the accident also is based on positive evidence unrebutted by any evidence of the respondents and in calculating the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal relied on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the employer about the age and the salary, taking into account the prospective pay revision schedule on the basis of binding precedents from the Apex Court and this Court and in fact, the Tribunal was conservative and rigid in not accepting the medical bill due to non-examination of anybody connected with the hospital though the authenticity of Ex.A-7- medical bill issued by Apollo Hospital was not specifically questioned. 10. The quantum of compensation also, thus, does not appear to be open to interference and in any view, a perusal of the record received from the Tribunal did not show that the insurer had applied for or obtained any permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in the absence of which an appeal by the insurer against the quantum may be unsustainable. The appeal, therefore, has to fail in any view. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 9th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2997 of 2000 Date: 9th February, 2011 KL