THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA NO.2994 OF 2001 DATED 24-6-2010 BETWEEN: Oriental Insurance Company Limited Appellant & 1. Gorrela Dhanalakshmi, W/o.late Krishna Kumar & others Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA NO.2994 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the award dated 8-5-2000 passed in MVOP No.475 of 1996 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Addl. District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. The claimants-respondents herein made a claim for Rs.1,50,000/- for the death of one G.Krishna Kumar, who is husband of the 1st claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and son of claimants 4 and 5 in motor accident involving the accident oil tanker bearing no.AHH 3399 when he was travelling with his goods in lorry bearing No.AP 16T 8759 on 14-12-1995. 2. The facts stated are:- the deceased G. Krishna Kumar died in a motor vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the accident oil tanker bearing No.AHH 3399, when he was travelling with his goods in lorry bearing No.AP 16T 8759 on 14-12-1995. It is stated that the deceased boarded the lorry AP 16T 8759 at Jaggampeta to go to Rajahmundry along with video cassettes and when the lorry reached near Gandepalli, the accident oil tanker bearing No.AHH 3399 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed the lorry in which the deceased was travelling from behind and due to the impact of the same, the deceased received multiple injuries and died at Rajahmundry Government Hospital. The deceased was aged 25 years as on the date of the accident and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. To prove the accident, the claimants filed Ex.A-1 copy of FIR and Ex.A-2 copy of the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, Rajahmundry. The wife of the deceased examined herself as PW-1. 3. The Tribunal, by the impugned order allowed the MVOP awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as prayed for with interest at 12 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. 5. As to the culpability in causing the accident, the Tribunal on evidence held that the driver of the accident oil tanker was at fault, which is supported by Ex.A-2, hence the said finding reached does not warrants any interference. Coming to the question of award of just compensation, as seen from the evidence, though there is no evidence to prove that the deceased earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal considering the age of the deceased at 25 years as on the date of the accident and he was hale and healthy, took the income at Rs.1,667 after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, which annually comes to Rs.20,004/-. After applying appropriate multiplier of ‘17’, though it worked out to Rs.3,40,068-00, since the claimants have claimed only Rs.1,50,000/- under all heads, restricted the claim to Rs.1,50,000/- which in my considered view cannot be said to be excessive and, therefore, does not warrants any interference. However, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is at 12 % per annum is reduced to 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date realization. 6. Coming to the question of payment of compensation, the Tribunal directed the respondents i.e. the appellant-insurance company herein and the owner and driver of the accident oil tanker bearing No.AHH 3399, to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company strenuously contended that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. ASHA RANI (2003 ACJ 1), the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as the deceased was not authorized to travel in a goods vehicle. I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company. The liability on the insurance company was fixed by the Tribunal in view of the law of the Supreme Court in NEW INDIA ASSURNACE CO. LTD. Vs. SATPAL SINGH (2000 ACJ 1) as on that date, but the view expressed in Satpal Singh’s case was held to be not correct proposition of law by the Supreme Court in Asha Rani’s case supra. 7. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant-insurance company is exonerated from payment of compensation to the claimants. However, if any amount is paid to the claimants by the appellant-insurance company herein pursuant to the directions of this Court, the same may be recovered from the owner of the accident oil tanker bearing No.AHH 3399. The claimants may also recover the remaining amount of compensation from the owner of the oil tanker bearing No.AHH 3399. The award of the Tribunal stands modified to the extent indicated above. No costs. _______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated 24-6-2010 Nrg. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA NO.2994 OF 2001 24-6-2010