THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO MACMA.NO.175 OF 2008 DT.30.04.2011 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, Nellore ……………..Appellant vs. Godugunuru Rajamma and others ………..Respondents JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment passed in M.V.O.P.No.631 of 2004, dated 19.09.2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, the present appeal is filed by the second respondent-Insurance Company. The petitioners filed M.V.O.P.No.631 of 2004 claiming compensation for the death of deceased G.Pullaiah. The Tribunal below while evaluating the evidence adduced by the petitioners, granted compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company mainly urged that the award of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is very much excessive and that the Tribunal below ought not to have fastened liability against the Insurance Company, as the offending vehicle was meant for carrying goods and the deceased is a gratuitous un- authorised passenger and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the compensation payable by the owner of the vehicle. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the court below is sustainable. As seen from the impugned order, petitioner Nos.1 to 4 filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the death of G.Pullaiah, who died in the motor accident on 29.03.2004. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A- 5. The factum of accident was not disputed. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company that the deceased is an unauthorised passenger and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Admittedly, PW-2 is an eye- witness to the accident. Though the second respondent/appellant alleged that the deceased is an unauthorised passenger, no evidence was adduced on that score. More over, no documentary evidence was filed to that effect. In the absence of any ocular evidence or documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the deceased is an unauthorised passenger as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The Tribunal below while discussing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the deceased is an authorised passenger and therefore, fastened liability against respondent Nos.1 and 2. I see no ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal below on that ground. Regarding quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that though the age of the deceased is morethan 50 years, the Tribunal below wrongly assessed the age of the deceased as 45 years and applied multiplier ‘13’. As seen from the impugned order at para 13, the Tribunal below noted that in Ex.A- 2 inquest report and Ex.A-3 post mortem certificate, the age of the deceased is noted as 45 years. The Tribunal assessed the compensation based on the documentary evidence i.e., Exs.A-2 and A-3 and determined the age of the deceased as 45 years, though PW-2 stated in his evidence that the age of the deceased is 55 years. In view of the documentary evidence adduced in Exs.A-2 and A-3, the finding of the Tribunal below is just and reasonable and the same is acceptable. Basing on the age of the deceased, the Tribunal below assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. In the present circumstances, the aforesaid finding is reasonable. However, the Tribunal below granted interest at 7.5% per annum and the same is reduced to 6% per annum, by following the principles laid down in SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OT HERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J Dt.30.04.2011 tjs. [1] 2009 (6) SCC 121