IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3708 of 2003 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant AND Smt. Mohideen Bee & 7 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3708 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5/claimants. 2. This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.778 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 22.07.2002. 3. Syed Mehmood and his family members were travelling in jeep No.AP 1 C:1742 on 29.06.1997 and near Perkit Village Shivar on National High Way No.7, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘APSRTC’) bus No.AP 10Z:179, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the jeep. Many inmates of the jeep received grievous injuries and died and Syed Mehmood also received grievous multiple injuries. While undergoing treatment at the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad, he died on 29.06.1997 itself leaving his mother and four minor children, while his wife Nikhat Sultana Shaheen also died in the same accident. Syed Mehmood was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a Junior Assistant in the Excise Department at Nirmal at the age of 42 years and he was contributing his entire earnings to his family. Therefore, the dependents sought for a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the APSRTC as well as the owner and insurer of the jeep. 4. The corporation put the claimants to strict proof of their allegations, while the owner of the jeep admitted the accident and the death of Syed Mehmood in the accident, while putting the blame for the accident on the APSRTC bus driver. In any view, the insurer of the jeep has to indemnify the owner from any liability. 5. The insurer contested the claim contending that it was the rash and negligent driving of the APSRTC bus that resulted in the accident and the insurer was unnecessarily made a party. 6. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants for compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 during the enquiry. 7. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, but not due to the fault of the APSRTC bus driver. Therefore, fastening the liability to the owner and insurer of the jeep and absolving the corporation of any liability, the Tribunal assessed the compensation on the basis of the monthly salary of Rs.4,289/- being earned by the deceased at the age of 40 years, applying a multiplier of 16 and deducting 1/3rd towards the personal expenses of the deceased. Apart from the said loss of dependency of Rs.5,48,992/-, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to award Rs.6,008/- towards funeral expenses, RS.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection for the mother of the deceased and Rs.20,000/- towards loss of love and affection to the four minor children of the deceased. The total compensation of Rs.5,85,000/- was directed to be paid with interest at 9% per annum, while further directions were given about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. 8. The insurer came up with this appeal contending that the conclusion about the absence of any negligence on the part of the APSRTC bus driver, in the presence of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver, was incorrect and the application of the multiplier was also incorrect. The insurer could not have been made liable for more than 10 persons who were travelling in the jeep as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, hence, the insurer desired the impugned award to be reversed. 9. The point for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep and if so, what is the just and adequate compensation to which the claimants are entitled. 10. The learned counsel for both parties have stated in their usual fairness that connected civil miscellaneous appeals arising out of the claims made due to deaths or injuries due to the same accident were also disposed of duly on merits and this appeal also has to be considered and decided on the same lines. Illustratively, the learned counsel for the appellant furnished a copy of the judgment of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.No.1701 of 2003, dated 29.07.2010. The learned Judge concluded in the said judgment that there was absolutely no doubt that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep and that the owner and insurer of the jeep are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant therein. The learned Judge again referred to the contents of the First Information Report about the jeep being not only driven rashly and negligently but also going on the wrong side when it dashed against the APSRTC bus and the registration of the crime consequentially by the Police and their investigation were also referred to. Rejecting any contributory negligence in any manner, the joint and several liability of the owner and the insurer was upheld, while, of course, with reference to the judgments of the Apex Court and the then prevailing rate of interest, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% per annum was reduced to 7% per annum. 11. The findings of fact by the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident cannot, therefore, be viewed differently in this appeal and insofar as the assessment of the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same requires confirmation straight away on the strength of the salary being earned by the deceased as a Government servant and the calculation of the compensation is on accepted lines. Any minor deviation in the calculation, even if true, need not be interfered with at this distance of time keeping in view the ever increasing inflation and ever decreasing value of the rupee, while the then prevailing rate of interest having been found by this Court in the connected appeal to be not in tune with 9% per annum interest granted by the Tribunal, but should have been only 7% per annum, it has to be, of course, adopted in this appeal also. 12. Therefore, the award, dated 22.07.2002, in O.P.No.778 of 1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, is confirmed in all respects except the interest granted on the compensation at 9% per annum, which shall be reduced to 7% per annum. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 15th September, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3708 of 2003 Date: 15th September, 2011 KL