HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.503 of 2002 DATED: .02.2010 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited Appellant And Syed Jeelani Pasha Mohd. Dastagir .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, challenging its liability of the award dated 17.09.2001 in O.P. No.599 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. & A.C.B. Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent in the appeal is the claimant and the 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.CAA 6955. The 1st respondent filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injury sustained by him. On 07.02.1999, when the 1st respondent was driving his auto towards Tolichowki, the offending vehicle came behind and dashed the auto. The 1st respondent suffered fracture on his right fore-arm, fracture on pelvis and other injuries. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the appellant- Insurance Company resisted the claim attributing negligence on the part of the 1st respondent himself. The Tribunal formulated the issues as to whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the 1st respondent was entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from whom? Based on the evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.59,000/- to the 1st respondent with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has field this appeal. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Heard Sri R.Brizemohan Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the 1st respondent-claimant himself was responsible for the accident as he abruptly slowed down his auto in the middle of the road and the driver of the offending vehicle therefore could not avoid hitting the auto. He further contended that the 1st respondent-claimant is guilty of contributory negligence. He also contended that the rate of interest at 12% p.a. is excessive. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to go into the evidence on record. The 1st respondent-claimant examined himself as PW1 and filed Exs.A1 to A8 in the claim petition. The 1st respondent pleaded that while he was proceeding from Mehdipatnam to go to Tolichowki, when his auto reached Nanalnagar Cross-roads, the offending vehicle came from behind and hit his Auto due to which the Auto turned turtle. It is the specific case of the 1st respondent that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Significantly, the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte. More significantly, the appellant-Insurance Company, although filed its counter, did not take the stand that the accident was due to contributory negligence of the 1st respondent-claimant. The appellant-Insurance Company proceeded with the plea that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. The 1st respondent-claimant in his deposition also affirmed his stand that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit the auto. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the accident took place as he suddenly stopped the auto. The contention as regards the contributory negligence, therefore, cannot be accepted, firstly for the reason that there was no such plea taken by it in its counter filed in O.P. No. 599 of 1999. Nextly no evidence was adduced on its behalf and no attempt was made by it to ensure adducing evidence through the 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the contention that the 1st respondent-claimant himself was responsible for the accident and that he was at least guilty of contributory negligence is without substance and the same is not acceptable. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the rate of interest at 12% per annum is excessive and the same is liable to be scaled down. While awarding interest at 12% p.a., the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sobharani Vs. New India Assurance Company[1]. This Court followed the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt.Chameli Wati Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi[2] and confirmed the interest at 12% p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal in that case. In this case, the accident took place as long back as on 07.02.1999. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 confers discretion on the Tribunal to direct payment of simple interest in addition to the amount of compensation. Having regard to these facts, it cannot, therefore, be said that the order of the Tribunal in awarding interest at 12% p.a. is incorrect. No other point was urged in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or other infirmity in the Award dated 17.09.2001 in O.P. No.599 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. & A.C.B. Cases- cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. There are no merits in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, the same is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J February, 2010. bcj [1] 2001(3) ALT 739 [2] AIR 1986 SC 1191