THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 5267 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 Between: ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant And Muppalla Sri Lakshmi and 5 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 5267 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved against the judgment (award) and decree dated 11.01.2008 passed in M.V.O.P.No.310 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole, the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed urging that the lower Court granted compensation with interest @ 9% per annum instead of 6% per annum as held in the case of SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] and further urged that the assessment of the lower Court fixing the liability on the deceased at 10% is erroneous and that the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Court is also erroneous. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment (award) and decree of the lower Court is sustainable? In the lower Court, claim petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of Muppalla Prasada Rao, aged about 34 years. The petitioners are the legal representatives/dependants of the deceased. The lower Court while taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle belongs to the 1st respondent. Admittedly, the offending vehicle is validly insured with the 2nd respondent insurance company under Ex.B-1 policy. So the vehicle was having valid insurance coverage under Ex.B-1. The lower Court the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 was discussed and came to the conclusion that there is also contributory negligence on the part of the deceased to some extent and fixed the proportionate liability of respondents 1 and 2 at 90% and of the deceased at 10%. The finding of the lower Court on that score is only based upon the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, though as per police investigation and charge sheet the accident was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The lower Court for the reasons assigned in the order fixed the liability at 90% by respondents 1 and 2 and at 10% by the deceased. However, in view of the discussion made in the judgment (award) of the lower Court, I see no grounds to interfere with the said finding. Further, as seen from the documents Exs.X-2 to X-10, the vouchers evidencing the payment made to the deceased during the course of his employment prior to the accident. On overall scrutiny of the above said documents, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the earnings of the deceased is Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, I see no grounds on that score also while arriving at the figure of Rs.7,000/- as income of the deceased. The lower Court correctly applied the multiplier while considering the age of the deceased as 34 years. After deducting one- third towards personal expenses, the lower Court granted interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization by not applying the principle in SARLA VERMA’s case. The respondents herein have filed the petition under Sections 166/167 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In view of the principle laid down in SARLA VERMA’s case, the petitioners are entitled interest on the compensation amount at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The lower Court was awarded interest at 9% per annum and the same is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 16-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 5267 of 2008 DATE: 16-03-2011 MR [1] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121