HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD

M.A.C.M.A.No.2703 of 2014 & M.A.C.M.A.No. 3116 of 2012

COMMON ORDER:

These two appeals arise out of the Decree and Judgments dated 19.01.2009 passed in MVOP No.85 and 86 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge, (for short 'the tribunal'), Ongole.

2. These two claim petitions arise out of the same accident. The appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is the 6th respondent in both the OPs.

M.A.C.M.A.No.2703 of 2014

3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2009 passed in OP No.85 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole.

4. The appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory, is the 6th respondent, who filed the present appeal challenging the quantum of compensation as highly excessive.

M.A.C.M.A.No.3116 of 2012

5. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2009 passed in OP No.86 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ongole.

6. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.08.2008 at about 4.00 hours the deceased while returning from Tirupati after attending a party meeting along with others in a Sumo bearing NO. AP 27 X 3804, and when the vehicle reached NH-5, 4 kms north to Ozili near Rajupalem, one lorry bearing NO. AP 16 TX 2437 driven by first respondent in a rash and negligent manner, to overtake the sumo came to the right side of the road, without giving any signals and hit the sumo. One person by name A.Srinivasa Rao died on the spot and others travelling in the sumo sustained injuries. The deceased-V.Ganesh was shifted to Government Hospital, Gudur and from there to Narayana Hospital, Nellore where he had undergone treatment for 40 days and had succumbed to the injuries. A case in crime No.78 of 2008 of Ozili Police Station was registered against the driver of the vehicle for the offence under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC.

7. Before the court below, respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the lorry and 4th respondent driver of the sumo vehicle remained ex-parte. 5th respondent did not file any counter.

8. The third respondent-insurer of the lorry filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the petition including the manner in which the accident occurred and about the involvement of the vehicle. The petitioner was put to strict proof of the same.

9. The 6th respondent –insurer of the sumo vehicle filed written statement denying all the material allegations made in the petition including the manner of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and its ownership by 5th respondent and its insurance with 6th respondent. It is further pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

10. The tribunal considering the evidence of the witnesses coupled with the documents marked, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence and fixed liability of 60% on the part of the driver of the sumo vehicle and liability of 40% on the driver of the lorry. Accordingly, the tribunal granted Rs.4,40,000/- as compensation to the petitioners for the death of the deceased in OP No.85 of 2009; and an amount of Rs.3,53,000/- to the petitioners for the death of the deceased in OP No.86 of 86 of 2009. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, the 6th respondent -insurance company filed separate appeals before this Court.

M.A.C.M.A.No.2703 of 2014

11. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.10.2009 passed in OP No.85 of 2009 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Ongole (for short "the tribunal").

12. The appellant-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory, who is respondent No.6 in the above OP, filed the present appeal questioning the quantification of the compensation awarded to the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 5.

13. In both the appeals, the appellant-insurance company raised various grounds in the memorandum of grounds of appeal challenging the impugned award.

14. As far as the contributory negligence is concerned, this court is of the considered view that the tribunal has taken proper care and caution while considering the evidence on record and documents and arrived at a just and reasonable conclusion that there is contributory negligence on the part of the lorry and sumo. Therefore, this court is not inclined to come to a different conclusion on the aspect of contributory negligence.

15. The second contention of the appellant is that the claimants are entitled to claim compensation either under Section 163-A or under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but they are not entitled to claim compensation under both the provisions of the Act.

16. The said contention has no force for the reason that though it is mentioned in the petition that the claimants made their claim under Section 163-A and 166 of the Act, the claimants are entitled to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in this case.

17. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the tribunal ought to have reduced ¼ amount towards personal expenses of the deceased as they were married and having dependants on them. The tribunal has reduced 1/3rd amount without following the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma and Ors. Vs.Delhi Transport Corporation and Ors1.

18. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is not inclined to recalculate the compensation as the tribunal granted just and reasonable compensation to the petitioners in both the petitions. This is not an appeal preferred by the claimants for enhancement. Since this appeal is preferred by the Insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation, the contention of the appellants for reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% is accepted as the courts are generally granting in most of the cases the rate of interest at 7.5%.

19. Though the appellant-insurance company contended that the tribunal granted interest at 9% p.a. which is excessive and sought for reducing it to 6% p.a. in the light of the decision in Sarla Verma's case supra (1). The learned counsel for the respondent however, opposed for reducing the rate of interest awarded by the tribunal.

20. Time and again, the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions reduced the rate of interest in cases of death. In Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad V. Ayila Sangameswarlu and Ors.2, this Court reduced the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a. In the light of the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this High Court, in these matters, normally, the courts are awarding rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. Hence, this

¹ MANU/SC/0606/2009

² MANU/AP/0698/2011

court is of the considered view that interest of justice would be met, if the rate of interest is reduced on the compensation amount.

MACMA Nos.2703 of 2014 &3116 of 2012

21. In the result, these appeals are partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7.5% in both the appeals on the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal. The rest of the award passed in both the appeals shall be intact. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_______________________ GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J

17.07.2019 MJL /*