HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1701 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: New India Assurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in MVOP No. 779 of 1998 dated 12.07.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- as against which, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 29.6.1997 the claimant along with her parents and others were traveling in a jeep bearing No. AP-1C- 1742 from Nirmal towards Nizamabad side and when the jeep reached near Perkit Villge Sivar at about 2.50 PM, one APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 179 of Mancherial Depot driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed against the jeep. As a result of which, the claimant herin received multiple injuries all over her body especially in her chest. Immediately the claimant admitted in the Government District Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, where she was treated as in-patient for about 5 days and spent more than Rs. 10,000/- for her medical treatment. Hence, claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50, 000/-. 3. The second respondent-General Manager, APSRTC filed its written statement denying all the material allegations made in the claim petition. He also denied the age and other particulars and also injuries sustained by the claimant. Respondent No. 1-Owner of the Bus filed a memo adopting the written statement of the second respondent. The third respondent-New India Assurance Company filed its written statement denying the allegations stating that the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 1C 1742 was driven in a rash and negligent manner as alleged in the petition and stated that the claim is highly excessive. Respondent No. 4- Owner of the jeep also filed written statement stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus therefore, respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation and seeks dismissal of the claim petition. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 179 an the Jeep No. AP-1-C-1742 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. to what relief? 5. On behalf of claimant, she examined her father and guardian as PW 1 and also examined one eye witness to the accident as PW-2 and got marked Exs. A-1 to A-10. 6. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident jeep bearing No. AP 10 1742, and the respondents 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. In order to determine the compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration of oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the pain and injury sustained by the minor girl immediately after the accident and also the amount spent by the petitioner towards purchase of medicines and for treatment granted a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation under all heads along with 9% interest per annum. Being aggrieved by the same the Insurance Company filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal misinterpreted the evidence of eye witness traveling in the jeep, who stated that the collision between two vehicles was due to fault of both the vehicles and she denied the suggestion that the accident was due to the negligence of the jeep driver only. He also submits that when both the vehicles were equally at fault for the accident, the Tribunal ought to have held that the RTC bus being a heavier one was liable to the extent of 60% even if the eyewitness evidence is accepted. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 179 and the jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 1742 and whether there is any contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers? 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident Jeep and the third respondent- owner of the jeep and the appellant –Insurance Company being insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. As seen from the contents of the complaint attached to the FIR, it is clear that the claimant and some others are traveling in the Jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 1742 from Nirmal to Nizamabad side and the vehicle was driven by its deriver in a rash and negligent manner and also on wrong side and dashed against the RTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 179, which was coming from Nizamabad side and as a result of which, the occupants in the Jeep have sustained injuries and were taken to hospital for treatment. It is also on record, that a complaint was lodged before the Police, PS Armoor, who in turn registered a criminal case in Crime No. 154 of 1997 against the driver of the Jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 1742 for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. Hence, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 1742 by its driver by coming on wrong side and dashed against the RTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 179. Therefore, the question of contributory negligence does not arise in this case and the Tribunal below rightly granted the compensation at Rs. 30,000/- and fixed the liability jointly and severally on the respondents 3 and 4 therein. 10. In the circumstances, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal court below. But however, The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum, is on high side and requested to reduce the same. 11. Taking into consideration catena of Supreme Court Judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the rate of rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 29.07.2010 KA