THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 161 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Having aggrieved by the orders and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 723 of 2004 dated 13.9.2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Cuddapah, the present M.A. C.M.A. is filed. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in the M.V.O.P. 723 of 2004. The tribunal below while assessing the evidence adduced by the petitioner granted compensation against the 2nd respondent. Having aggrieved with the same, the present M.A. C.M.A. is filed. The counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the tribunal below failed to see that there is no proof of permission to carry other than the driver on the tractor-cum-trailor and that there are violations of the terms of the policy and the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the finding of the tribunal below is sustainable? For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. The petitioners are minors represented by their next friend, defacto guardian and their father’s elder brother Mr. M. Lakshmi Reddy. They filed petition claiming compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs for the death of their father Nimmakayala Ramanjaneya Reddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The factum of accident was not disputed. The 1st respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company had taken a plea that the accident took place due to mechanical defect as connecting joint rod of the tractor was cut off and that the owner i.e. the 1st respondent has paid the premium to cover the risk of five persons. But, at the time of accident 10 persons were traveling. Thus there was a fundamental breach of policy. In proof of the accident, P.W.2 a direct witness to the accident was examined by the petitioners. According to P.W.2 on 28.11.2003 himself and deceased were transporting the electric cement poles in the offending tractor in order to erect them the driver of the offending tractor-cum-trailor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which the hook in between the tractor and trailor came out and the trailor fell on the road side due to which cement poles fell on the deceased and he met with instantaneous death. Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-3 are certified copies of F.I.R. and charge sheet respectively and the averments therein are corroborated with the evidence of P.W.2. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the inquest report which also shows that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent. Thus the evidence on record clearly established that the driver of the 1st respondent drove the tractor-cum-trailor in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident resulting the instantaneous death of the deceased. The tribunal below also came to the same conclusion and found that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The finding of the tribunal below is sustainable on that score. Regarding the liability of the insurance company, it is the contention of the 2nd respondent that premium was paid by the 1st respondent to cover the risk of five persons, but at the time of accident, the offending vehicle carrying ten persons, which is in violation of the policy and the permit conditions and as such the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation. It is the contention of the 2nd respondent further that the deceased was traveling in the tractor as a midway passenger, thereby the owner violated the terms and conditions of the policy. To substantiate the same R.W.1-the Administrative Officer of 2nd respondent- insurance company is examined and marked Ex.B-1 policy copy. His evidence goes to show that the deceased has boarded the crime vehicle as midway passenger, but during the course of cross examination admitted that both F.I.R. and the charge sheet reads that the deceased was traveling in the tractor as a cooly and the same is evidencing by Exs.A-1 and A-3. Therefore, on combined reading of evidence of P.W.2, R.W.1 in particular Exs.A-1 to A-3, it is proved that the deceased was traveling in the tractor as a cooly but not as a midway passenger as pleaded by the 2nd respondent. As I stated already, it is also the contention of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent paid the premium to cover the risk of five persons, but the offending vehicle was carrying 10 persons at the time of the accident and therefore, the 2nd respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation in view of the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The tribunal below well discussed the evidence on record placing reliance on a decision reported in GIRIRAJ PRASAD AGRAWAL & OTHERS Vs. PARWATI DEVI & OTHERS[1] held that the instant case on hand squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case of above decision. Therefore, the contention of the 2nd respondent that the 1st respondent though paid premium to cover the risk for five passengers, allowed ten passengers carrying in the vehicle at the time of accident may not be a ground to disallow the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, in any view of the matter, the finding of the tribunal below on that score is sustainable. Further, the tribunal below well discussed the evidence on record while arriving the income of the deceased and also applied the multiplier with correct perspective while awarding compensation of Rs. 4,17,500/- on all heads, which is in my view is just and reasonable, accordingly sustainable. However, granting of interest @ 6% per annum is just and reasonable on the awarded amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization while placing reliance on a decision reported in SARLA VERMA(SMT.) & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS[2]. Accordingly, the rate of interest granted by the tribunal below @ 7.5% on the awarded compensation is reduced to 6% per annum. With this modification, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. ___________________ 30.4.2011 CHV [1] 2005 ACJ 1626 [2] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121