THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3133 of 2003 Date: 19.08.2010 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited … Appellant and Gandla Bajammal and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3133 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited as well as the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 25.06.2001, in O.P.No.696 of 1996, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), allowing the O.P. by awarding a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation as claimed by the petitioners therein for the death of the deceased-Gandla Pedda Rajanna, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 28.3.1996 at about 11-00 a.m., at Chepur village Shivar, Nizamabad District, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, bearing registration No.AP 28T 5463, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 3. This is a case of death in a road accident. The method and the manner in which the accident had occurred and also the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the O.P. granting compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as claimed by the claimants for the death of the deceased. Hence, the present appeal by the insurer. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer contends that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. He also contends that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. 5. Now, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are — (1) Whether the appellant-insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants; and (2) Whether the quantification of compensation made by the Tribunal is just and proper. 6. As regards the first contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer, a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that no ground to the effect that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and hence the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation was ever been taken in the counter filed before the Tribunal, nor any argument was advanced to that effect before the Tribunal. Had the appellant-insurer really been taken the said ground before the Tribunal, the same would have been answered either way. But, there is no semblance of reference to such a ground. Further, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is also not able to demonstrate that such ground was taken before the Tribunal, but the same was not addressed in the impugned judgment. In view of the same, the said ground cannot be taken now, at the appellate stage. 7. Regarding the other contention that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side, it is to be seen that as per the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the deceased was doing agriculture and labour work and basing on the facts and circumstances as on the date of accident, including the age of the deceased and the occupation of the other family members of the deceased, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2,500/- , which comes to Rs.30,000/- per annum. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased and also by applying the appropriate multiplier ’16’, the Tribunal had arrived at the total amount of compensation to Rs.3,52,500/-, which includes Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.2,500/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium exclusively to claimant No.1, who is the wife of the deceased. 8. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in fixation of income of the deceased and the eventual awarding of compensation by the Tribunal warranting interference by this Court. 9. However, the Tribunal had awarded interest on the amount of compensation at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In my considered view, the said rate of interest is slightly on higher side. Therefore, exercising the power under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I deem it appropriate to reduce the rate of interest from 12% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 19.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3133 of 2003 19.08.2010 (Msr)