IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYFIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.3650 of 2002 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND Syed Yakub Ali and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1110 of 1998, dated 3-6-2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy. Ambassador Car No.AP-9-C-9740 was involved in a motor accident on 13-07-1998 near Miyapur, when a lorry AP-9-U-5887 dashed against it due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. The car driven by the claimant’s son was totally damaged and the claimant’s son died, while another inmate was injured. Kukatpally Police registered Crime No.448 of 1998 and hence, the claimant/ owner of the car claimed a compensation of Rs.1,07,651/- towards damage to the car, out of which Rs.73,845/- were towards damages to the various parts and the balance was towards incidental expenses. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all his allegations contending the compensation claimed to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident, damage to the car, coverage of the offending vehicle by insurance and the entitlement of the claimant to the compensation. The Tribunal examined PWs.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to 13 and Ex.B.1 during enquiry. On the basis of the evidence of PW.2, the eye-witness, corroborated by Exs.A.1 to A.4-FIR and Charge Sheet etc., the Tribunal concluded the accident to have occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver, which was also the finding in O.P.No.1162 of 1998 filed by the dependents of the deceased son of the claimant as per Ex.A.11-award. The Tribunal then referred to the evidence of PWs.1 and 3, the claimant and the surveyor, concerning the value of the vehicle, damage caused and amount required for its restoration and with reference to the admission of the claimant about realising Rs.25,000/- by selling the damaged car as scrap, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also awarded interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs. The insurer filed the appeal being aggrieved by the quantum of damages awarded, when there was no evidence about the amount for which the car was purchased or the value of the spare parts or the renewal of the registration of the car. Sri D.S.N.V. Prasad Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Atchutha Ram, learned counsel for the 1st respondent- claimant are heard. The point for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation and if so, to what extent? Insofar as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident is concerned, there was no challenge by either party and the ownership of the vehicle with the 2nd respondent herein or its subsisting insurance with the appellant at the relevant time are also not in dispute. The fact that the accident had occurred and the car was damaged was a necessary consequence of the conclusion about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident, and hence, the only question that remains for consideration in the appeal is the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled towards damage to the car. Ex.A.1-FIR, Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet and Ex.A.3-Panchanama of the scene of offence bearing testimony to the claim of the car being damaged heavily in the accident were corroborated by Ex.A.5-M.V.I. report, who gave the details about the damage sustained by the vehicle. The damage caused to the vehicle was of such a magnitude as per Ex.A.5 as to make it not roadworthy any more and Ex.A.5 also gives the particulars of the period up to which the car had a valid permit and insurance, which was beyond the date of accident. The Motor Vehicles Inspector on inspection opined the accident to be not due to any mechanical defects in the Ambassador car and the very manner of accident while the deceased and another inmate were driving the car and the contents of Ex.A.5 may suggest that though the car was very old, it was in a running condition. PW.3 claimed to have taken photographs of the vehicle during the survey, which show the rear portion of the car to be still in tact and while giving a detailed description of the damage that occurred to the car, PW.3 assessed the value of the damaged parts at Rs.93,095/- and the value of the salvaged parts to be Rs.5,000/-, leaving a loss of Rs.88,095/- towards damage to the vehicle. While he assessed the pre-accident market value of the car at Rs.92,000/-, the damage, thus, appeared to be almost cent percent notwithstanding the appearance of the rear portion of the car to be in tact. PW.3 assessed the salvage value of the parts at Rs.20,000/-. The very fact that the appellant itself accepted to insure the car under Ex.A.9 shows that it could not have been considered as totally worthless and PW.3, the surveyor, was not shown to be having any such interest or motive as to resort to falsehood in favour of the claimant. Apart from the evidence of PW.2 about the accident, the photographs attached to the Survey Report of PW.3 identified the car surveyed by PW.3 to be the car in question owned by PW.1. PW.1 claimed to have realised Rs.25,000/- by sale of the damaged car as scrap and to have purchased it earlier for Rs.1,55,000/- for which, of course, there was no evidence. PW.3 assessed the value of the car as already stated and also the value of the damaged parts to differ from which there is no strong reason on record nor was there any evidence for either respondent to contradict PW.3. Assuming that the claim of PW.1 was tainted with interestedness and he might have overvalued the car and under valued the price fetched by selling it, the assessment by PW.3 alone remains to be taken as the basis and if so, compensating the claimant by Rs.50,000/- towards damage to the car does not appear divorced from the material on record. However, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment or deposit of the compensation. In fact, had the car continued to be roadworthy and in a running condition without any accident, its value would have suffered natural depreciation due to passage of time and natural wear and tear due to regular use and such fall in value due to natural causes could not have in any manner resulted in increase in any realisable income from the car so as to compensate such loss with any interest. While it should be noted that half of the compensation awarded by the impugned award along with interest and costs was already deposited by the insurer-appellant to the credit of the matter by virtue of the interim order by this Court on 17-12-2002, the judicial discretion in awarding interest should be exercised, taking the normally awarded interest under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the basis, to reduce the interest awarded to 6% p.a. under the circumstances. Therefore, the impugned award is modified reducing the interest granted on the compensation awarded to 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is allowed to that extent in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-01-2011 Ksn