THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.4441 of 2003 Date:23rd December, 2010 Between: 1. The New India Assurance Co. rep. by its Branch Manager, Vijayawada & Anr. ... Appellants a n d 1.Bongarala Lalitha & Ors. … Respondents *** THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.4441 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal has been filed by the insurer and insured of vehicle bearing No.AP 26 T 8881 assailing the judgment and decree, dated 10.06.2002, passed in O.P.No.267 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby and whereunder the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part and granted compensation of Rs.12,73,200/- to the claimants. 2. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are the claimants in O.P.No.267 of 1998. They filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and amendment Act 54 of 1994 r/w. Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the loss of life of Bongarala Narendra Rao @ Narendra S/o.Veeraswamy. Claimant No.1 is wife and claimants 2 and 3 are the minor children of Narendra. Respondents 5 to 7 herein came on record in O.P., claiming as widow and children of Narendra. More precisely, 5th respondent Smt.Bongarala Vinodlatha @ Seeli Vinodlatha claims to be the wife and 6th respondent Bongarala Sanjay and 7th respondent Bongarala Sundeep claim to be the sons of Narendra. A suit being O.S.No.64 of 1998 was filed by them in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, for declaration of their status. The said suit came to be settled before the Lok Adalat on 15.07.2000 and accordingly, an Award came to be passed in terms of the compromise. As per the compromise, Bongarala Vinodalatha relinquished her claim in the property of Narendra. Bongarala Narenra Rao @ Narendra was a clerk-cum-cashier in Indian Bank, Eluru and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,360/- p.m. On 13.04.1998 at about 12.30 noon he was returning from RTC Bus stand, Eluru to his house on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 F 4393 after dropping his friend at the bus stand. On reaching the office of the Executive Engineer, R. & B. Office on N.H.5 Road, a lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 8881 came in high speed and dashed against his Hero Honda motorcycle, as a result, he fell down and received severe injuries. He came to be shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Eluru. Doctor examined him and declared him dead. His wife and two children filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-. According to them, deceased was contributing his entire earnings to the family for maintenance. The compensation has been claimed against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. The insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the claimants. The insurer denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. A plea has been taken in the counter that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. A further plea has been taken that the driver of the lorry was not having valid and subsisting driving licence at the material time and therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 8881 by its driver, the first respondent? 2) Whether the petitioners and the respondents 5 and 6 are entitled to claim any compensation, if so to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked. On behalf of the respondents 4 to 6 in the O.P., 2 witnesses were examined and 4 documents were marked. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 26 T 8881 and that the claimants as well as the respondents 5 and 6 in the O.P., are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,73,200/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation, by judgment dated 10.06.2002. The judgment and decree passed in O.P.No.267 of 1998 is assailed in this C.M.A. by the insurer and the owner of the vehicle. 3. Heard Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Sri I.Gopal Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 5 to 7. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the interest at 9% p.a. on the award amount is excessive and the same is required to be reduced to 6% p.a. Except this point, no other point has been urged by the appellants in this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment. 6. In the matters of motor accidents claims, the Supreme Court and this Court uniformly awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. – vide the judgment of this Court in K.Yerriswamy v. Special Deputy Collector, LAHLC[1] 7. In view of the proposition of law laid down in the cited judgment, the interest awarded on the compensation amount is reduced from 9% p.a. to 7.5%. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the rate of interest on the compensation amount from 9% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. _________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J. Date:23rd December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD C.M.A.No.4441 of 2003 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy) Date:23rd December, 2010 [1] 2007 (3) ALT 9