IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO : 768 of 2000 (Appeal under Section ____ against the order/decree in OP no. : 437 of 1993 dated 17/07/2098 on the file of the court of theI Additional District Judge, Srikakulam) Between: APSRTC rep.by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad-20 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Harin Prabhavathi W/o Late Jayapaul Resident at Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam town and district 2 Harin Simonam Sana Palu S/o Late Jayapaul Resident at Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam town and district 3 Harin Jayaprabha D/o Late Jayapaul Resident at Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam town and district 4 Harin Vijayaprabha D/o Late Jayapaul Resident at Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam town and district 5 Harin Isac Paul S/o Late Jayapaul Resident at Gujarathipeta, Srikakulam town and district 6 S.Srinivasa Rao S/o Kotayya Staff No.465066 Srikakulam-I Depot. 7 K.Dharma Rao S/o Surayya residing at Ragolupeta, Srikakulam district. 8 Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, G.T.Road, Srikakulam. ....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant :MR.C.APPAIAH SHARMA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.VISHWESHWAR REDDY The Court delivered the following JUDGEMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.768 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the APSRTC challenging the award dated 17-07-1998 in O.P. No.437 of 1993 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The claim petition was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, H. Jayapaul, who was said to be aged about 59 years on the date of accident. Against the claim of Rs.2,25,000/- the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,43,480/- under various heads. 3. Appellant/APSRTC challenged the award on the following grounds: 1. That the accident occurred due to collision between the APSRTC bus bearing No. APS 2966 and as well as the Taxi bearing No. AAS 135. Respondent No.3 is the owner of the taxi, respondent No.4 is the insurer of the said vehicle before the Tribunal, who are respondent Nos. 7 and 8 in the present appeal, respectively. Therefore, the liability shall be apportioned between the APSRTC on one side and on respondent Nos. 7 and 8 on the other side. 2. That the Tribunal erroneously selected the multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased, which was said to be 59 years, since, there was no documentary evidence showing the age of the deceased. 3. That the interest granted at the rate of 12% per annum is at higher side. 4. Heard both sides. POINT No.1: 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no eye witness to the extent was examined and, therefore, the finding of the Tribunal, fastening the entire liability on APSRTC is unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. He also would further submit that there was no basis for the Tribunal to arrive at the age of the deceased. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8/Insurance Company would contend that no evidence was adduced by APSRTC to prove that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of both the vehicles and the Tribunal was right in arriving at the conclusion that the accident was caused solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, basing on the documentary evidence available on record and from the admissions of PW.1, who is the wife of deceased, in the cross examination by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 7. I have perused the material available on record including the depositions as well as the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. The consistent stand of the claimants as could be seen from the version of PW.1 before the Tribunal is that the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. In her cross-examination, she admitted the suggestion put by the counsel for the Insurance Company to the effect that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the taxi. Further, Ex.A-1, Certified Copy of First Information Report in Cr.No.36 of 1993 of Laveru Police Station and Ex.A-2, Certified Copy of Charge Sheet in C.C.No.17 of 1994 of AJMFC, SKL, clearly indicate that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. These, documents were admitted in evidence without any protest from the appellant/APSRTC. Therefore, now the appellant cannot dispute the genuineness of the said documents. Though the documents may be a piece of evidence in proof of rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus, they play a very vital role in the absence of any evidence adduced by the APSRTC. 8. The procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in trying claims under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is summary in nature and the strict rules of evidence need not be insisted for proving as to who is at fault in causing the accident. The appellant/APSRTC in view of the above mentioned evidence, adduced by the claimants, is under a duty to prove that the accident was not either due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus or that it was on account of the composite negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. But, no such evidence is let in by the appellant. Under these circumstances, in my view the Tribunal had rightly arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of APSRTC bus. This point is answered against the appellant confirming the finding of the Tribunal. POINT No.2: 9. As regards the age of the deceased also it is not always necessary that the same has to be proved by the documentary evidence, such as birth certificate or any other similar material. In the instant case, apart from the oral evidence, the age of the deceased is also mentioned in the inquest report and post-mortem certificate, which are exhibited as Exs.A-6 and A7, respectively. Therefore, the Tribunal did not commit any error in arriving at the age of the deceased basing on the oral testimony of PW.1 as well as basing on Exs.A-6 and A-7 and, as such, the Tribunal also did not commit error in selecting the multiplier. This point is also answered against the appellant. POINT No.3: 10. However, granting interest at the rate of 12% per annum is on higher side and not in accordance with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Therefore, the interest rate is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above reduction in the interest rate, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J September 10, 2009 MD