IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.610 OF 2008 Between:- The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Door No.16-2-681, Malakpet, Hyderabad. …Appellant A n d Khambhampati Anuradha and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.610 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-11-2007 in O.P.No.1508 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I- Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short ‘the tribunal’), wherein the claim of respondents 1 and 2 herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,05,672/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.8,60,000/- on account of death of the deceased Satyanarayana, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22-08-1999. The 1st claimant is the wife and the 2nd claimant is the son of the deceased Satyanarayana. According to them, on that day, the deceased was going on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 9 AA 9533 on N.H.7. At about 10.30 p.m., a lorry bearing No.AP 20-T 7020 came in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Hero Hondo motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.312/1999 of Alwal P.S was registered against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimants, the deceased was working as Manager in the A.P. Forest Development Corporation and was earning a salary of Rs.6,974/- per month. 4. The third respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and the appellant-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 7020? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount and from which of the respondents? (iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.X-1 were marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the appellant. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,05,672/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Aggrieved by the same, insurer preferred the present appeal. 8. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in the F.I.R, the number of the lorry is not noted and subsequently only it was identified as lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 7020. It is well settled that the F.I.R need not contain all the particulars, as the same is intended to set the criminal law into motion. The failure on the part of the complainant to mention the number of the crime vehicle in the F.I.R is of no consequence, especially in the present case where the accident has occurred during night time and it is quite possible that the complainant was not in a position to note the number of the crime vehicle. After due investigation, the police have identified the crime vehicle and prosecuted the driver of the said lorry. The criminal case record supports the contention of the claimants that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 7020 by its driver. 9. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the deceased was aged 48 years and was working as Manager in the A.P. Forest Development Corporation and was earning a net salary of Rs.5,007/- per month as can been from the salary certificate Ex.A-5. The tribunal has applied appropriate multiplier of ‘12’ suitable for the age of the deceased and arrived at the loss of dependency in a sum of Rs.4,80,672/- and by awarding a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the first claimant and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,05,672/-, which is considered to be just and reasonable. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable reasons for interfering with the award passed by the tribunal. Even otherwise, as can be seen from the impugned order, the appellant-insurer has not obtained permission of the tribunal under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant cannot, therefore, question the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal. 12. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned award passed by the tribunal is not liable to be interfered with. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th July, 2010. Lrkm.