HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N .RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3718 of 2002 DATED: 12.08.2010 Between : The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Branch Manager. …APPELLANT A N D Sanepalli Rama Subbareddy and another. … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 24.07.002 passed in M.V.O.P.No.439 of 2000 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Cuddapah, allowed the claim petition granting a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The facts of the case in brief are that on 28.10.1999, at about 12.15 P.M., when the 1st respondent-claimant was walking along the road near NTR statue, the 2nd respondent drove his motorcycle bearing No.AP-04-9390 in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, and dashed against him, as a result, the 1st respondent sustained fracture on his left leg, and was shifted to Government Hospital, Cuddapah, and thereafter to Deepa Nursing Home, Cuddapah, where he was treated for four months as inpatient and incurred an expenditure of Rs.30,000/-. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. To substantiate the claim of the 1st respondent, he was examined as PW1 and the Doctor as PW2, who treated the claimant for the injuries sustained by him and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on his behalf. No witnesses were examined except marking of Ex.B1 - proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Cuddapah on behalf of the appellant-New India Assurance Company and the 2nd respondent. Taking into consideration the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A2 - wound certificate and Ex.A4 - Disability Certificate and the age of the 1st respondent - claimant as 44 years and the fact that he was a practising advocate at Cuddapah, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition restricting the claim to Rs.4,00,000/- only, though he was held to be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,07,791/-. The Tribunal fixed the average monthly income of the 1st respondent at Rs.5000/- though the claimant stated that his monthly income is between Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, and applied ‘15’ as appropriate multiplier. Thus, it has reached at Rs.9,00,000/- as annual earnings of the claimant. By considering Ex.A4 – disability certificate issued by PW2, the Tribunal assessed his disability as 40% and arrived at Rs.3,60,000/-, and after deducting the same from the annual earnings of the claimant, it reached the figure at Rs.4,07,791/-. In addition, an amount of Rs.72,791/- towards medical expenditure was awarded. The Tribunal has further awarded Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all it has awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- to the 1st respondent-claimant. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – New India Assurance Company Ltd. submits that the Sub-Inspector of Police, during the course of their investigation, submitted a report to the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Cuddapah, who issued Ex.B1 - Proceedings dated 17.01.2000 which is extracted as under: “ I have gone through the report submitted by the S.I. of Police, Cuddapah Traffic Police Station for referring the case in Crime No.19 of 1999 under Section 38 I.P.C. of Cuddapah Traffic Police Station remarks of the C.I., Cuddapah, West circle thereon and CO file concerned. The complainant gave false complaint and tried to hood wink the police. In fact the accused drove the vehicle while the complainant was sitting pillion. Hence, permission is accorded to refer the case as ‘False’. The S.I. is instructed to submit final report to the Court and obtained the proceedings of the Court”. He has contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering Ex.B1 - proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Cuddapah. He has further contended that in view of Ex.B1, rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by respondent No.1 – Owner, is not established, as such, the appellant-New India Assurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that since Ex.A4 - disability certificate was not issued by the competent authority, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the same. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing Rs.5000/- as monthly earnings of the 1st respondent – claimant, and the interest awarded @9% per annum is on the higher side and the same may be reduced to 6% per annum. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent- claimant contends that the order passed by the Tribunal is perfectly justified and it needs no interference by this Court. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a careful analysis of both oral and documentary evidence, it is obvious that even though the learned Standing Counsel contended that the Tribunal erred in considering Ex.B1 – proceedings of the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, wherein the case against the 2nd respondent, who rode the motorcycle, was referred to as false, it is to be taken note of that the 1st respondent-claimant was not communicated the action taken on a police report by the Magistrate before whom the case against the accused was referred to, nor even the claimant was served with any referred notice suggesting him to proceed legally by way of filing protest petition before the Court concerned, as such, Ex.B1 has no value in the eye of law. The Tribunal placed reliance on a decision reported in 1997 Crl.J. 4636, wherein it was held that when the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate, accepting the report, passing an order dropping proceedings without issuing notice to the concerned, the order of the Magistrate is illegal. Therefore, the plea raised by the appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. is not sustainable. Further, even though the learned Standing Counsel contended that rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 – Owner of the motorcycle, is not established, it is to be observed that the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 - Certified copy of First Information Report in Crime No.19 of 1999 clinchingly establishes that respondent No.2 - owner of the motorcycle was guilty of rash and negligent riding of his bike and caused the accident by dashing it against respondent No.1 - claimant, causing fracture on his left leg, and this evidence was not rebutted by RW1. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in drawing adverse inference. So far as multiplier ‘15’ is concerned, it is to be noticed that at the time of deciding the O.P., the claimant was aged about 44 years and it was much prior to the decision reported in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation of India[1]. (2009 (6) SCC 121). Concerning monthly earnings of respondent No.1-claimant, the Tribunal had taken a reasonable view in fixing the monthly income of respondent No.1 / claimant, at Rs.5000/- per month, though, he claimed to be earning between Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per month being a practising advocate. Thus, the Tribunal, having scrutinized both oral and documentary evidence, passed the impugned order, as such, the contentions put forth by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant – New India Assurance Company are not sustainable. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be found fault with as it does not suffer from any legal infirmity, as such, the same is not liable to be interfered with by this Court in any way. However, this Court is inclined to reduce the interest @ 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation amount to 6% per annum. Except the reduction of interest to 6% p.a. on the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, in all other aspects of the matter, the order dated 24.07.002 passed in M.V.O.P.No.439 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Cuddapah, holds good. With the above modification of the impugned order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 12th August, 2010 YVL / BCJ [1] 2009(6) SCC 121