THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4459 of 2003 and 1308 and 1312 of 2011 Date:18.07.2011 Between: Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vijayawada ..... Appellant AND Maddi Leela and others .....Respondents The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: All these appeals arise out of a common judgment 29.04.2003 dated passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda in O.P.Nos.1386, 1387 and 1396 of 2000. O.P.Nos.1386 and 1387 of 2000 are the claims arising out of personal injuries, whereas O.P.No.1396 of 2000 is the claim for the death of the deceased - Ram Mohan Reddy. The appellant in all these appeals is the insurance company. According to the case of the claimants on 10.07.2000, when the injured and deceased are going in a maruthi van bearing No.AP 248 356 belonging to the deceased near Rayinigudem, a bus bearing No.AP 16W 2699 belonging to one P.Krishna Rao, arrayed as one of the respondents in these appeals, and insured with the appellant, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the maruthi van, as a result of which the deceased, who was the owner of the maruthi van, received fatal injuries and died on the spot, where as the other claimants sustained multiple injuries. The claimant in O.P.No.1386 of 2000 claimed a compensation 6,00,000/-, the claimant in O.P.No.1387 of 2000 claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and the claimant in O.P.No.1396 of 2000 claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. The owner of the offending vehicle (bus) died and his legal representative was brought on record, who remained ex parte. The appellant herein filed counter putting the claimants to strict proof of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, nature of the injuries to the claimants, earning capacity of the deceased and also the validity of the insurance policy. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the maruthi van and therefore, there is no liability on the part of the appellant. The Tribunal had tried all the O.Ps. together and on behalf of the claimants, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-31. On behalf of the respondents in the O.Ps., no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B-1 insurance policy was marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.98,160/- for the claimant in O.P.No.1386 of 2000, Rs.1,09,257/- for the claimant in O.P.No.1387 of 2000 and Rs.6,62,000/- for the claimant in O.P.1396 of 2000 with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the O.Ps. till realization. P.W.1 is the claimant in O.P.No.1386 of 2000 and P.W.2 is the claimant in O.P.No.1387 of 2000 and their evidence clearly goes to show that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. No other evidence is adduced to dispute the above claim and the Tribunal has, therefore, relied on their evidence and came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the fault of the driver of the bus as alleged and not due to the fault of the deceased. Insurance of the bus was also admitted. The Tribunal found that the injured and the deceased are third parties and the risk is covered. So far as the claimants in O.P.No.1396 of 2000 are concerned, their claim was that the deceased was owning three tractors and said to be earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month and also doing business in stone crushing. Several documents were filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that there is no valid material to hold that the deceased was earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month. However, taking into totality of the circumstances, the income of the deceased was fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month and considering his age at 35 years and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, fixed the loss of dependency at Rs.6,40,000/-. A sum of Rs.22,000/- was also granted under non-pecuniary damages towards loss of estate, consortium and funeral expenses. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that there is no proof of the earnings of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- as arrived by the Tribunal and it is excessive. The fact that the deceased himself was the owner of the maruthi van is not in dispute, Exs.A-25 to A-27 shows that the deceased was owing three tractors and that he was associated with stone crushing business is proved by Ex.A-24. The Tribunal, therefore, taken a reasonable view of the earnings of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- when the earning capacity of even a labour or technical man will be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. Therefore, the award so far it relates to O.P.No.1396 of 2000 is considered cannot be said to be excessive calling for any interference. So far as the award in O.P.No.1386 of 2000 is concerned, the Tribunal, while granting compensation of Rs.98,160/-, considered the evidence of the Doctors, also the fact that there are several medical bills supporting his treatment and the evidence of P.W.5 showing that the claimant suffered 10% disability. The claimant was treated in Nizams Hospital and he was said to be in Hospital for some time. The Tribunal, therefore, considered the medical expenses, loss of earnings and also future earnings due to the disability and arrived at a reasonable compensation, which cannot be said to be based on no evidence. So far as the award in O.P.No.1387 of 2000 is concerned, the Tribunal, while taking into consideration, the evidence of the Doctor – P.W.4 and the fact that the claimant received multiple injures and also keeping in view the income and the loss of earnings in view of the disability, granted a compensation of Rs.1,09,257/-. The Tribunal has also accepted the medical bills to a tune of Rs.43,857/-. There is no contra evidence to disprove any of the claims of the claimants. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts and particularly when the Tribunal has given sufficient reasons to assess the nature of the injuries and also the expenditure, the award cannot be said to be excessive and I find no reasons to interfere with the compensation awarded. However, the Tribunal has granted interest at 9% per annum and in view of the present settled principle of law, the claimants will be entitled to interest only at 7.5% p.a. on the compensation granted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, these M.A.C.M.As. are allowed in part while confirming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The rate of interest at 9% p.a. is reduced to 7.5% p.a. Each party do bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 18th July, 2011 GHN