THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3640 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award, dated 25.03.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, in O.P.No.431/1998. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are that the deceased Krishna Murthy was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and he was earning Rs.2,50,000/- per year on his Ac.50.00 cents fish tank at Gundugolanu village, Bhimadole Mandal and was also working as P.W.D.Contractor. On 18.03.1998 at about 2.00p.m. when the deceased was going on his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.AP.37-M-189 as pillion rider, when the bike reached Pathuru Sugar factory, lorry bearing No.W.B.25-6399 driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor bike, on account of which deceased suffered serious injuries, shifted to Government Hospital, Where he died. He was a licensed Class-III PWD Contractor. The petitioners have claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. The third respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments in the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.W.B.25-6399 driven by its driver-1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and again which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned Judge awarded compensation of Rs.5,43,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any valid grounds for allowing the appeal? 6. The main contention of the appellant is that as the deceased was a pillion rider of motorcycle, he is not covered under the insurance policy. But I am of the view that in view of changed regulations, Ex.B1 comprehensive policy covers the pillion rider also, which position is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Coming to the quantum, the appellant has not seriously questioned the same, and the quantum of compensation cannot be said to be on high side also. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to rate of interest granted at 12% per annum. I hold that interest at 7.5% per annum is appropriate instead of 12% per annum. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed confirming the award in all respects except reducing the rate of interest from 12% per annum to 7.5% per annum. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 22nd June 2010, Rns