THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Letters Patent Appeal No.137 of 2001 Date: 30-6-2010 Between Mullapudi Satyavathi and 5 others … Appellants/Respondents and 1. The National Insurance Company, Vijayawada … Respondent/Appellant 2. Vanam Sreenu and another … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Letters Patent Appeal No.137 of 2001 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 14-12-2000, in C.M.A.No.585 of 1994, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. 2. The appellants herein are the claimants, respondent No.1 is the insurer, and respondents 2 and 3 are the driver and the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.ABK-6388, respectively. 3. This is a case of death of one Mullapudi Venkat Rao (deceased) in a road accident that occurred on 02-02-1992. From the record, it is to be seen that the insurer did not obtain permission from the Tribunal as contemplated under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity ‘the Act’) in preferring the civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court. The learned single Judge, in such an event, ought to have rejected the appeal. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurer submits that wrong multiplier had been applied, as a result of which, the Tribunal had granted an additional sum of Rs.48,000/- and on that score, the learned single Judge reduced the amount to that extent i.e., from the total compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal at a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- reduced the same to Rs.1,52,000/-. 5. Actually, since this is a case of death and the amount of Rs.48,000/- is not a very big amount that has been awarded by the Tribunal, on the technical grounds like application of wrong multiplier the learned single Judge of this court ought not to have rejected the claim of the claimants nor it is proper for this Court to interfere with the same, particularly in view of the fact that the Statute is a beneficial piece of legislation. 6. That apart, as already pointed out, the insurer did not obtain permission from the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act. Nothing is on record in order to show that any such permission was obtained or the conditions mentioned in Section 170 of the Act were satisfied. 7. On both the counts, the judgment of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. 8. However, it is made clear that the sum that was reduced by the learned single Judge, which comes to Rs.48,000/- (Rupees forty eight thousand only) shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum only from the date of filing of the O.P., before the Tribunal till realisation. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. _________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA _________________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 30th June, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA Letters Patent Appeal No.137 of 2001 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 30th June, 2010. (Ak)