HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 1760 of 2003 DATED: 21.10.2010 Between: Tallem Sivaprasada Rao Tallam Sitaravamma .. Appellants And 1. V. Ankamma 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. 3. Prabhakar Sahoo 4. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 05.03.2002 made in M.V.O.P. No. 824 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, whereby an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum was awarded to the appellants-claimants against their claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. The facts of the case in brief are that on 24.09.1998, at about 10.00 A.M., while the deceased-Srinivasarao, who was the son of the claimants, and others were going by Auto bearing No. AP27 T 5362 belonging to the 1st respondent from Timmapuram to Chilakaluripet and when they reached near Agricultural Marketing Check Post, Chilakaluripet, the driver of the lorry bearing No. OR 12 4721 belonging to the 3rd respondent, while coming in opposite direction, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Auto, as a result, the deceased fell down from the Auto and the lorry ran over him resulting in his instantaneous death. Hence, the claimants filed M.V.O.P. No. 824 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the Auto belonging to the 1st respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition and further stated that there is no collision between the two vehicles and the deceased fell down from the Auto and succumbed to injuries. The 4th respondent, insurer of the lorry belonging to the 3rd respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the petition and further stated that it is the case of collision between the two vehicles, hence the owner and insurer of the Auto are also necessary parties and the lorry was not insured with this respondent at the time of the accident. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No. AP27T 5362 or Lorry bearing No. OR 12 4721? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount? (iii) To what relief? To substantiate the claim of the petitioners-claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 on their behalf. Nobody was examined nor got marked any documents on behalf of the respondents. Taking into consideration the evidence and other material on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimants preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal did not apply appropriate multiplier while awarding the compensation and even though negligence of the driver of the lorry in driving the vehicle is proved, reasonable compensation was not awarded by the Tribunal. He further contends that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the future prospects of the tender age of the deceased-boy and his contribution to his family, as such, the learned counsel prays to enhance the compensation. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the evidence of PW2, it is obvious that PW2 was travelling along with the deceased–Srinivasa Rao by the Auto and when they reached near Agricultural Marketing Check-post, Chilakaluripet, the lorry driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction at high speed and hit the Auto and Sreenivasa Rao, due to the impact of the collision, fell down from the Auto on the road and the lorry ran over him, as a result, he died on the spot, and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW2, who is one of the co-persons. The 1st respondent, being the owner of the Auto, the 2nd respondent, being the insurer of the Auto and the 3rd respondent, being the owner of the lorry, did not choose to adduce any evidence to contradict the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners. Further, the age of the deceased-Srinivasa Rao as per Ex.A6 – Study Certificate issued by S.C.V.S. Junior College, Chilakaluripet, is not disputed. From a careful analysis of the entire material available on record, it appears that the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as consolidated amount towards compensation without taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased and his contribution to his family. In any case, since the petitioners are the parents of the deceased, who was studying Intermediate at the time of his death in the motor vehicle accident, and they had high hopes on him, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimants are entitled to more compensation inasmuch as the consolidated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal appears to be not just and reasonable. Therefore, they are entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on all counts. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% is liable to be reduced to 7.5% in view of the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this regard, and the same is hereby reduced to 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. With the modification of the impugned order dated 05.03.2002 as indicated above, this appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 21-10-2010 bcj