THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 752 of 2004 J U D G M E N T: This is an appeal by the Insurance Company, assailing the order and decree dated 12.08.2003 passed in O.P.No.374 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, filed by the respondents-claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short – ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of Peddagolla Padma (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor accident. The facts, in brief, are as follows. Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law and respondent No.3 is the mother of the deceased. On 20.10.2000, at about 06.15 a.m., the deceased along with others while going in a tractor-trailer bearing No. AP 23T 5285/5286 from Jogipet to Gadipeddapur, en route near ice factory at Annasagar, a lorry bearing No. MH 18M 549 came in the opposite direction at a high speed and dashed the tractor and trailer due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot. The deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and that she used to contribute the same to the claimants. In the counter filed before the Tribunal, the appellant insurance company contends that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer and there was no negligence or rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. It was further contended that the O.P. is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the driver and the owner of the tractor and trailer. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry MH 18M 549? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? During trial, the claimants examined the mother of the deceased i.e. claimant No.3 as P.W.1 and also examined one D. Srisailam, who is an eye witness to the accident as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. The insurance company, except marking Ex.B1, copy of the insurance policy, did not choose to adduce any oral evidence. The Tribunal, holding that the deceased died in the accident that occurred on 20.10.2000, awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,000/- with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the husband of the deceased also died in the accident and hence, she has no dependants, for one to say that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, contends that Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 prescribes that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16, firstly upon the sons and daughters and the husband, secondly, upon the heirs of the husband, thirdly, upon the mother and father. Therefore, he submits that since the husband of the deceased died and she has no offspring, naturally, the heirs of her husband, at first and later her mother and father are entitled to receive compensation. I find some force in the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Further, the evidence available on record clinchingly shows that the accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry, but not the driver of the tractor and trailer. The insurance company has not adduced any oral evidence to show that negligence cannot be thrown entirely on the driver of the lorry. Therefore, without going deep into the matter, I hold that there is no justification for the appellant to file this Appeal. But however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% to 7% per annum. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 5th August 2010 ksld