THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1193 of 2003 Date: 26-8-2010 Between The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, S.B.H. Complex, Patamata, Vijayawada-10 … Appellant/Respondent No.3 and 1. Shaik Nagoor … Respondent/Petitioner 2. Talluri Babu Rao and another … Respondents/Respondents 1 and 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1193 of 2003 Oral Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent No.3. 2. Heard Sri R.Briz Mohan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri Ravi Kumar Tolety, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 31-5-2002 in M.V.O.P.No.61 of 2000 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in awarding a sum of Rs.93,815/- towards compensation to the petitioner as against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30-7-1999 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of auto bearing No.AP5X-5366. 4. The appellant herein is the insurer, respondent No.1 is the claimant and respondents 2 and 3 are the driver and the owner of the auto, respectively. 5. The particulars of the accident and the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the auto are not in dispute. 6. The claimant filed the O.P., before the Tribunal claiming to be a cleaner of the auto sustaining grievous injuries of fractures in the accident. Initially, he was shifted to the Community Health Centre, Nuzvid and then shifted to University General Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. A case was also registered against the driver of the auto for the offences punishable under Section 338 IPC and Sections 134(a) & (b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is -- whether the claimant would be covered by the policy of the auto, in which he was travelling ? 8. It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer that the claimant filed the O.P., before the Tribunal claiming to be a cleaner of the auto and as per Ex.B-1 insurance policy, cleaner is not covered. Therefore, there was no liability on the insurer to pay the compensation to the claimant. 9. The said contention was not accepted by the Tribunal observing that though the claimant claimed to be a cleaner of the offending auto, there is no evidence on record to show that he was working as the cleaner and further that though the premium was paid only for driver, four plus one passengers can travel in the offending vehicle and there was no proof whatsoever was filed before the Tribunal in order to show that the claimant was working as a cleaner of the auto. The Tribunal further observed that the injured sustained injuries in the accident occurred while travelling in the auto, which was validly got insured with the third respondent company and the main object of the Act is of social nature, the strict proof of evidence nor contrary pleadings made in the petition, cannot disentitle the injured when the policy was in force. With the said observations, the Tribunal disagreed with the contention of the insurer and eventually held that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 10. I am in complete agreement with the views expressed by the Tribunal and therefore, the objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer cannot be sustained. 11. Coming to the other aspect i.e., regarding the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, it was on record and established that he received injuries of fractures. There was treatment taken by the claimant after spending considerable amount. Therefore, having taken stock of the whole situation, the Tribunal had awarded a total sum of Rs.93,815/- towards compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 12. For the foregoing, I do not find any irrationality in the finding recorded by the Tribunal. However, I am of the view that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation at 9% per annum is on higher side. Therefore, the same shall have to be reduced to 6.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment under appeal, however, reducing the rate of interest. Parties to bear respective costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1193 of 2003 26th August, 2010. (Ak)