IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.682 OF 2007 DATED:20.07.2010 Between: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Ongole Through its Regional Office Hyderabad, rep. by its Deputy Manager … Appellant And Maram Nagalaxmi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.682 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, Ongole, in M.V.O.P. No.612 of 1999, dt.23.10.2006 whereby and whereunder compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- with interest at 9% per annum was allowed in favour of the claimants. The first respondent - claimant is the wife of the deceased Koti Reddy, who was riding Spark Motor Cycle on the fateful day when the offending lorry owned by the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein came in a rash manner at a high speed and said to have dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased resulting in the deceased succumbing to the serious injuries suffered by him in the said accident. The claim was originally made for Rs.1,00,000/- and subsequently enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. The parents of the deceased also got themselves impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the claim petition claiming that they are also entitled to a share in the compensation along with the claimant. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimant, namely, that of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.3, which comprises of F.I.R. of the crime registered vide Cr. No.101 of 1999 of Chimakurthy Police Station, Post Mortem Certificate and inquest report, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry belonging to the second respondent herein and as the said vehicle was insured with the appellant herein, the appellant is also liable to pay the compensation. In the impugned Award the offending vehicle was sometimes referred to as ‘tractor’, but the cause title as well as the F.I.R. show that the offending vehicle is a ‘lorry’ and as such the reference in the impugned Award shall be as that of the said lorry, which is the offending vehicle. After finding that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal has assessed the compensation payable and came to the conclusion that the deceased was only twenty-five years of age and his daily earning was Rs.50/-. Therefore, after deducting 1/3rd share towards personal expenses, his earning was calculated at Rs.1,000/- per month and by applying the multiplier of seventeen, which is appropriate for the said age of twenty- five years, compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- was arrived at and awarded the same. In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was awarded towards loss of consortium to the first respondent - claimant, and respondents 3 and 4, i.e., parents of the deceased were awarded Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. Further, first respondent – claimant and the respondents 3 and 4 each were together held entitled to 1/3rd of the total compensation, at the first instance. In this appeal, Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, has strenuously contended that Ex.A.3, inquest report marked on behalf of the first respondent - claimant herself, shows that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident inasmuch as the offending vehicle was parked on the left hand side beyond the road margin. As per the said report, the motor cycle driven by the driver of the deceased appears to have hit the said stationary lorry from behind. The learned counsel therefore submits that this clearly shows the total negligence on the part of the deceased in driving the motor cycle, and the finding of the rash and negligent driving arrived at by the Tribunal below against the offending lorry is not justified. The learned counsel also points out that the pillion rider who was travelling along with the deceased, has not been examined by the claimant and he seeks that an adverse inference may be drawn against the claimant. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. First part of the contention cannot be accepted inasmuch as the F.I.R., Ex.A.1, clearly states that the manner in which the accident has occurred. Further, the inquest report, Ex.A.3, is a post accident report and the said inquest report is primarily concerned with the cause of death of the deceased. The recording of possibility of occurrence of the event as narrated by the panchas in the said report has hardly any authenticity and finding as to negligence cannot be based upon the inquest report. Further, evidence of P.W.2 was also led, apart from the first respondent – claimant as P.W.1 and more surprisingly though the appellant had obtained leave of the Tribunal for contesting the claim, neither it has led any evidence nor the owner of the lorry, who was impleaded as first respondent in the Tribunal, has led any evidence. It is therefore difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the offending lorry was not at fault and is not responsible for the negligence. The finding of the Tribunal is therefore clearly justified so far as the first issue is concerned and warrants no interference. Insofar as the second aspect is concerned, it may be noticed that the claim is restricted by the first respondent – claimant for Rs.2,00,000/- . However, the Court below has awarded an aggregate sum of Rs.2,36,000/- with 9% interest per annum. Since the maximum amount claimed in the petition is only Rs.2,00,000/-, the Award is restricted to Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the interest awarded by the Tribunal below at 9% is excessive and as has been held consistently by the Supreme Court, the interest is liable to be scaled down to 6% per annum. The claim decreed by the Tribunal therefore stand modified to Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 20.07.2010 bnr