HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.2438 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: Respondents 1 and 2, who are the parents, of S.Sudhakar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), filed O.P. No.277 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Ananthapur seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 15-01-2000 at about 4-45 p.m. 2. The case of the respondents in the O.P. is the deceased was employed as Driver with the 3rd respondent and that on 15-01-2000 at about 4-45 PM., while he was traveling in the Rig Lorry bearing No.AP 02 C 4344, in the course of his employment, from Punganur to Kanganellore and the driver of the lorry was driven the lorry with high speed in rash and negligent manner, without observing pits and boulders on the road and took a sudden turn on account of which the deceased fell down from the lorry and sustained grievous head injury and died on the spot. They further contend that that their son was aged about 24 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Appellant filed counter, denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident occurred on 15-01-2000 due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 02 C 4344 by its driver, the deceased fell down from the lorry and caused the death of the deceased? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. On behalf of the appellant R.W-1 was examined and copy of the Insurance policy was marked as Ex.B-1. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.2,65,800/- to the first respondent only, with costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit for the death of the deceased in the accident. Aggrieved by the award of compensation, the present appeal is by the Insurance Company. 2. The learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have awarded any compensation, inasmuch as the claimants have failed to establish the occupation of the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased was employed as a helper in the 3rd respondent’s organization and that the Tribunal went wrong in taking Rs.3,000/- per month as the earnings of the deceased, when there was no substantial evidence and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has rightly allowed the claim petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants is just and, if not, to what amount they are entitled and from whom? 5. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that the deceased was employed as helper only in the 3rd respondent organization, and not as a driver, cannot be accepted. PW-2, father of the deceased, deposed that the deceased was working as Driver in the 3rd respondent organization and not as a helper. The trial Court had also taken note of the evidence of PW-3, employer of the deceased, who issued Ex.A-6, salary certificate of the deceased. It is mentioned in Ex.A-3 that the deceased was employed as Driver in his organization and the salary is Rs.3,000/- per month. 6. Though the learned Standing Counsel contends that PW-3 stated in his evidence that the deceased was employed as helper, it is only denial by PW-3 to the suggestion that the deceased was employed as helper. Therefore, the evidence of the father of the deceased is coupled with the evidence of PW-3 and supported by Ex.A-6, clearly discloses that the petitioner was employed as Driver in the 3rd respondent organization and that he comes under the coverage of the policy. 6. In the circumstances, the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed and the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited and the 3rd respondent - employer of the deceased are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. However, the rate of interest is somewhat on higher side. Hence, the same can be reduced from 9% to 7%. 7. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed and the appellant – Insurance Company and the employer of the deceased are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7% from the date of filing of the OP till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. October 22, 2010. KTL