HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2356 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in M.V.O.P. No.532 of 1999 dated 22-05- 2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. 2. Appellant is respondent No.3, respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are driver of the autorickshaw and owner of the autorickshaw respectively, are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. Claimant filed the O.P. contending that on 09-12-1998 while herself and her husband were going to Kakinada in the autorickshaw bearing No.AP-5X-4485, at the outskirts of Annavaram Temple, as the driver of the autorickshaw, respondent No.1, applied brakes suddenly, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries to her eye, head and right ear. She was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada, where she was inpatient for about four (4) months. A case in Crime No.125 of 1998 was registered against respondent No.1 and investigated into. Hence, claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.80,000/- for the injuries suffered by her. 5. Respondent No.1, driver of the autorickshaw, filed his counter denying the case of the claimant and the same was adopted by respondent No.2, owner of the autorickshaw. 6. Respondent No.3, insurance company, also filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 7. Based, on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent – Driver of Auto AP 5X 4485? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief ?” 8. To prove her case, claimant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-3 and Ex.X-1 was also marked. On behalf of the insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 9. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.59,520/- to the claimant against all the respondents making them jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved of the same, questioning its liability, respondent No.3 – insurance company filed this appeal. 10. Now, learned counsel for respondent No.3, appellant, contends that respondent No.1, driver of the autorickshaw, had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such, it is not liable for payment of compensation and that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is high. 11. Now the questions that arise for consideration are; (1) Whether respondent No.1, driver of the autorickshaw that involved in the accident, was having valid driving licence at the time of accident ? (2) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is high ? QUESTION No.1: 11. As far as the question of driver of the autorickshaw not having valid driving licence is concerned, there is no dispute that he had licence to drive light motor vehicles and the vehicle involved in the accident was an autorickshaw and it was not disputed before the Tribunal that autorickshaw is a light motor vehicle and obviously so, as such, finding of the Tribunal in this regard cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, question No.1 is answered. QUESTION No.2: 12. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, according to the claimant she suffered fracture of right temporal parietal bone and injury to the brain. Medical evidence revealed that there were injuries to head. Such being the case, awarding compensation of Rs.59,520/- cannot be said to be on higher side. Thus, quantum of compensation also cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, question No.2 is answered. 13. However, as per the latest pronouncements of the Supreme Court, rate of interest can be fixed at 6% per annum instead of 9% per annum and it is accordingly reduced. 14. With the above modification in rate of interest alone, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 23, 2010. PV