IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.3623 of 2003 DATE:21.01.2011 Between: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., …… Appellant And Sajibilli Demudamma and others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No.3623 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The insurance company is the appellant. It is a death case. The deceased Sanyasi died in road accident which took place on 18.10.201 at Visakhapatnam when owner-cum-rider of Bajaj Chetak scooter bearing No.AP 32 A 1172 hit him while driving in rash and negligent manner. In this appeal there is no dispute about factum of accident and about the accident resulting due to rash and negligent driving of the accident scooter. There is also no dispute about coverage of insurance with the appellant for the accident vehicle. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam by award dated 03.07.203 in M.O.P.No.1079 of 2002 awarded compensation of Rs.1,47,000/- to the claimants who are dependants on the deceased as against their claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the award, the lower Tribunal while directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount, permitted the insurance company to recover the same from the insured/owner of the vehicle on making payment to the claimants on the ground that rider of the scooter was not having valid driving licence to drive the accident vehicle and as it amounts to violation of one of the policy conditions. In view of National Insurance Company Limited V. Swaran Singh[1], of the Supreme Court rendered by three learned Judges, the said portion of the award is proper and legal. 2) The lower Tribunal adopted multiplier of 11 for age of the deceased at 55 years by selecting the same from Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even as per Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation[2], of the Supreme Court, the said multiplier of 11 for the age of 55 years is appropriate. Income of the deceased arrived at by the lower Tribunal is also not in any way improper and excessive. 3) The lower Tribunal awarded interest of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The appellant’s counsel disputes grant of interest at that rate. The accident took place in the year 2001. The bank rate of interest in the year 2001 has to be taken into consideration. There is no material on record to show that the bank rate of interest during that period. Therefore, it cannot be said that interest of 9% p.a. on the compensation amount is excessive. Thus, the appellant fails on all grounds. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J January 21, 2011 ksh [1] (2004)3 SCC 297 [2] (2009)6 SCC 121