THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.10741 OF 2003 AND M.A.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1246 OF 2011 J U D G M E N T: Delay of 126 days in filing the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is condoned. 2. It is represented by the counsel for the appellant that the legal representative R.5 is already on record, and therefore, there is no further need to bring the legal representatives. Accordingly, submission is recorded. 3. Admit. 4. The appeal is filed against the order of the motor vehicles Tribunal, Ongole in M.V.O.P.No.699 of 2000 granting a compensation of Rs.1,48,279/- consequent on the death of the deceased Bhaskara Rao in motor accident. According to the case of the claimants on 22.12.1999 when the deceased was proceeding on a cycle, at about 9.40 A.M., when he reached near Praja Vydyasala, a lorry bearing No. ABG 6399 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and he was treated in hospital and died after few months. He was an agriculturist and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. The 1st petitioner is the wife and they are the dependants on him. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. 5. The insurance company filed a counter disputing the nature of the accident, the cause of death of the deceased and also the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court, for trial: 1) Whether the deceased Madala Bhaskara Rao died in a Motor Vehicle accident on 22.12.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. ABG 6399 driven by respondent No.1? 2) What the correct age and income of the deceased by the date of accident? 3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so from whom? 4) To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the respondents, no oral is adduced but got marked Ex.B.1. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the lower tribunal granted compensation of Rs.1,48,279/-, which is challenged in this appeal. 9. The point that arises for consideration is whether the grant of the compensation by the lower tribunal is valid? 10. POINT: The learned counsel for the appellant contends that as per the evidence of the doctor, the patient sustained severe injuries and he was lucky to be survived. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant pleads that there is no proof that the cause of death was due to the injuries in the motor accident. The evidence on record unhesitatingly shows that the deceased received injuries in the motor accident on 22.12.1999. He was in the hospital for more than one month and four months thereafter he died. He was under continuous treatment and the deceased was aged about 65 years. There is no other ailment for the deceased. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, the lower tribunal came to the conclusion that the death was only a consequence of the injuries sustained by the deceased in the motor accident despite the best treatment given to him. I do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the lower tribunal about the cause of the death. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower Court has granted a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability and also to the medical expenses and loss of consortium and arrived at the compensation. According to him, when once compensation is granted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the grant of compensation under no fault liability does not arise and therefore, this amount has to be excluded. As can be seen from the order of the lower tribunal in para No.8, the particulars of the medical expenses and the loss of consortium etc., were determined. Evidently, the dependency could not be determined by the lower tribunal as the deceased was aged about 65 years and earning capacity and application of the multiplier does not arise. Probably taking into consideration that even in cases of no fault liability the minimum compensation is Rs.50,000/-, the lower tribunal seems to have fixed the earning capacity of the deceased at Rs.50,000/- and the dependency of the petitioners to that extent. Therefore, when no separate compensation was granted by applying multiplier or determining the earning capacity of the deceased, the amount of Rs.50,000/- referring as no fault liability can only taken as earning capacity of the deceased, it was determined by the tribunal. 12. Therefore, I find no merits in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. But, however, it is pleaded that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the interest at 9% cannot be recovered and it may confine to 7.5%, and as such the interest is confined to 7.5% instead of 9% as granted by the lower tribunal. 13. Therefore, with the above modification, the award of the lower tribunal is confirmed and the appeal is disposed. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 29-06-2011. INL