HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N .RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 420 of 2005 DATED:21.10.2010 Between : Gopisetty Prabhavathi …APPELLANT/ Petitioner A N D 1. Narendra Pansar (Ex parte) 2. The Branch Manager, New India Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., … RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Common Order dated 16.08.2004 passed in O.P.Nos. 434, 436, 437 and 438 of 1998 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, while partly allowing the claim petitions granted a total compensation of Rs.57,000/- against her claim of Rs.1,50,000/- in O.P. No. 436 of 1998 together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition till realization. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in O.P. No.436 of 1998. The facts of the case in brief are that on 01.05.1998, at about 06.30 A.M., while the petitioner and the deceased were coming by their Maruthi Car bearing No. AP9E 486 from Shirdi to Guntur and when they reached Pasamadigi outskirts, the driver of the Oil Tanker bearing No. MH12 Q 2022, while proceeding towards Munabad, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit the Maruthi Car, as a result, the deceased – Gopisetty Kranthi, the only daughter of the petitioner aged about 12 years and the deceased - Gopisetty Sreenivas Rao, who is the husband of the petitioner in O.P. No.436 of 1998, died in the accident, while the petitioner sustained multiple injuries all over her body and her right upper arm was fractured. A steel rod was fixed at the place of fractured bone of the petitioner and the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Oil tanker. Hence, she filed the claim petition in O.P. No. 436 of 1998 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. To substantiate the claim of the petitioner, she was examined as PW1 and others as PWs.2 to 5 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. No witnesses were examined except marking of Ex.B1 – Policy of New India Assurance Company Limited on behalf of the respondents. Taking into consideration the evidence both oral and documentary, the Tribunal partly allowed O.P. No. 436 of 1998 as stated supra. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. The 2nd respondent, who is the insurer of the Oil Tanker, filed written statement in all the petitions denying the material allegations and stated that the petitions are not maintainable for non-joinder and mis-joinder of proper parties i.e. the owner of the Maruthi Car and its insurer. It is also stated that the driver of the Maruthi Car was not having valid driving licence and the accident occurred only due to his gross negligence. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed in O.P. No.436 of 1998: 1) Whether the death of the deceased caused in Motor vehicle accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Oil Tanker No. MH12 Q 2022 or Maruthi Car No. AP9E 486? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? The learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant contends that even though the petitioner’s only daughter, Gopisetty Kranthi, who was studying VI class at the time of the accident and was to take care of the petitioner in her old age, died in the accident, the Tribunal failed to award reasonable compensation, as such, prays to enhance the compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material placed on record. Since none appeared for the respondents, the matter is disposed of on merits. There is no dispute with regard to the cause of the death of the deceased - husband and the deceased - daughter of the petitioner and the petitioner sustaining injuries. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would clearly show that when the Maruthi Car was proceeding towards left, the Oil Tanker, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed and dashed against the Maruthi Car resulting in the death of both the deceased, the daughter and the husband of the petitioner. Ex.A3 - report of the inquest held over the dead body of the deceased – Srinivas Rao and Ex.A4 –post-mortem report of the deceased-Srinivas Rao, Exs.A8 and A9 - inquest report and postmortem report of the deceased-Kranthi respectively corroborate the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Ex.A11 – medical bills and Exs.A12 and A13 – wound certificates of the petitioner and Venkatesh respectively amply testify that the petitioner had to spend huge amounts on her treatment and her loss of consortium and loss of compassion towards her daughter. The evidence, both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the petitioner, remained unrebutted. Further, even though the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, it did not award any amount towards loss of consortium and medical expenses. From a careful analysis of the evidence on record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and reasonable to enhance a sum of Rs.Rs.43,000/-. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing a sum of Rs.43,000/-, making a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rs.57,000/- + Rs.43,000/-), however the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is liable to be reduced and the same is hereby reduced to 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount in view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 21st October, 2010 bcj