THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2280 of 2003 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2277 of 2003 Date: 05-8-2010 C.M.A.No.2280 of 2003: Between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Manager, Begumbazar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Moghuls Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad … Appellant/Respondent No.3 and 1. Smt. Chaya … Respondent/Petitioner 2. Dayal Singh (owner of lorry) 3. Pratap Singh (driver of lorry) 4. Saleem (owner of jeep) 5. Mahadev (driver of jeep) 6. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch: Nizamabad … Respondents/Respondents C.M.A.No.2277 of 2003: Between National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Manager, Begumbazar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Deputy Manager, Regional Office, Moghuls Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad … Appellant/Respondent No.3 and 1. Smt. Jaya … Respondent/Petitioner 2. Dayal Singh (owner of lorry) 3. Pratap Singh (driver of lorry) 4. Saleem (owner of jeep) 5. Mahadev (driver of jeep) 6. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch: Nizamabad … Respondents/Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2180 of 2003 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2277 of 2003 Oral Common Judgment: Heard. 2. These two appeals arise out of the same accident and by the common judgment, hence these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. C.M.A.No.2280 of 2003 is filed by the insurer against the common order and decree dated 23-12-2002 in O.P.No.171 of 1999 (along with O.P.Nos.673 of 1998 and 162 of 1999) passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Adilabad in awarding a sum of Rs.2,21,028/- as against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 09-6-1998 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of lorry bearing No.AP9T-4043. 4. Whereas, C.M.A.No.2277 of 2003 is also filed by the insurer against the same common order and decree insofar as it relates to O.P.No.162 of 1999 in awarding a sum of Rs.1,30,015/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the injured petitioner in the same accident. 5. In both the appeals, the appellant is the insurer of the offending lorry, respondent No.1 are the injured petitioners, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the driver of the offending lorry, respondent No.4 is the owner and respondent No.5 is the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP1T-3735 and respondent No.6 is the insurer of the said jeep. 6. The only point that is being urged is regarding the quantification of the compensation as high. 7. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. Therefore, there is no necessity for reproducing all the details. 8. The Tribunal basing on the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, had arrived at the conclusion that the claimants in both the O.Ps., are entitled to the compensation for a sum of Rs.2,21,028/- and Rs.1,30,015/-, respectively. 9. A careful perusal of the impugned common order would only show that the Tribunal had elaborately considered all the documents on record and having taken into account all the material aspects and the evidence on record, arrived at the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to the compensation, as indicated above. 10. I do not find any irrationality or mis-appreciation of the evidence on record nor do I find that the claim of the petitioners or the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is whooping, as contended by the learned standing counsel for the insurer. In other words, the amounts of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants in both the O.Ps., have been arrived at basing on cogent reasoning and the material available on record. 11. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said quantification. 12. However, the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation i.e., at 9% per annum is on higher side. Therefore, the same is reduced to 7% per annum from the date of petitions till realisation. 13. In the result, both the appeals are allowed in part, only to the extent indicated above. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 05th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2280 of 2003 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2277 of 2003 (Common Judgment) 05th August, 2010. (Ak)