THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.601 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is jointly filed by the Insurance Company and the insured against the Award in O.P.No.516 of 1992, dated 30-12-1994 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore, whereunder the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,69,494/- together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization in favour of the respondents herein (claimants). Admittedly, the first appellant i.e., the Insurance Company did not take permission under the provisions of Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available against the insured. In fact, the second appellant against whom the claim was made as the owner of the offending vehicle was before the Tribunal along with the first appellant – Insurance Company. Therefore, this appeal, which is directed only against the quantum of compensation, is not maintainable as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nicolletta Rohtagi [1]. However, since the owner of the vehicle has also preferred the appeal as appellant No.2, this appeal is heard on merits. On 26-02-1992, one Vatturi Venkata Suryaprabhakara Rao was traveling in car bearing registration No.PY-01-9376. The vehicle, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit a lorry bearing registration No.AP- 27-T-234, which was coming in the opposite direction. As a result of which, Vatturi Venkata Suryarabhakara Rao died. The respondents 1 and 2 being parents and Respondents 3 and 4 being brothers of the deceased filed the O.P. and claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The appellants while admitting that the offending vehicle was insured, denied that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the car and denied the other allegations of the claimants. The first claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and claimant No.4 was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on their behalf. The appellants did not adduce any evidence. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the issues, as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car; Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom. The Tribunal based on the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and Ex.A1 certified copy of F.I.R., Ex.A2 certified copy of charge-sheet, Ex.A3 certified copy of M.V.I. Report and Ex.A4 certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.40 of 1992 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, under which the driver of the car was convicted for the offences under Sections 337 and 388, recorded a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. It may be noted that the owner of the vehicle (appellant No.2) did not adduce any evidence by producing the driver of the car as a witness, nor filed any evidence rebutting the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal on the issue of rash and negligent driving cannot be impeached. As regards the quantum of compensation, P.W.1 stated in her evidence that her son was working at Pondichery, Port Department, and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.1,800/-. Ex.A5 salary certificate was filed to show the income of the deceased. As per Ex.A5, the deceased was earning a gross salary of Rs.1,840/-, which is not disputed by the appellants. On the basis of the said income, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,69,494/- towards pecuniary loss, which cannot be said to be excessive. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants while fairly submitting that the said quantum is fair, however, contended that the interest at 12% allowed by the Tribunal is excessive. It may be noted that under the provisions of Section 171 of the Act, where any Claims Tribunal allows a claim for compensation, such Tribunal may direct that in addition to the amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the claim as it may be specified in this behalf. The accident occurred on 26-02-1992. The Tribunal appears to have taken the prevailing rate of interest in the year 1992 and awarded the interest at 12% per annum. The appellants could not place any material to show that the prevailing interest was less than 12% at the time of accident. Therefore, it cannot be said that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal in awarding the interest is unreasonable. There are no merits in the appeal. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 15th July, 2010. skmr [1] (2002) 7 SCC 456