S. R. K. PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in cma No. 1037 of 1987 dated 28-8-1995. Appellant is the Oriental Fire and General insurance Company.

( 2 ) THE facts, which led to filing of this appeal, can be briefly stated as under: on 13-6-1984 at 5 a. m. , while the deceased Dr. P. Suseela was travelling in the APSRTC bus bearing No. A. A. Z. 3743 from Ananthapur to Guntur, a lorry bearing no. A. D. F. 7018, belonging to the 4th respondent herein, loaded with chicken dung, came in the opposite direction driven by its driver, 5th respondent herein, at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said bus. On account of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries. Consequently, the legal representatives of the deceased i. e. , husband and two daughters (Respondents 1 to 3 herein) laid a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs. 4,04,712/- before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Guntur. According to the claimants i. e. , Respondents 1 to 3 herein, the deceased was working as Woman Assistant Surgeon in Government Hospital, Penukonda in anantapur District and she was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 2,200/- apart from her earnings on her private practice and she was aged 35 years at the time of accident.

( 3 ) THE appellant-Insurance Company filed counter, which was adopted by the 4th respondent-owner and the 5th respondent driver of the vehicle, denying the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and their liability to pay the compensation.

( 4 ) THE 6th respondent-APSRTC also filed counter denying the deceased travelling in its bus and earnings of the deceased and the death.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence available on record found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and accordingly awarded a sum of rs. 1,93,000/- towards compensation with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the appellant-Insurance Company and respondents 4 and 5 herein. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimants being Respondents 1 to 3 herein preferred cma No. 1037 of 1987 before a learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge, on a consideration of the entire material available on record, allowed the appeal in part granting a sum of Rs. 5,48,350/ - towards compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of actual realization. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has preferred this LPA.

( 6 ) NORMALLY, this Court will not interfere with the concurrent finding of fact arrived at on the basis of the evidence by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as a learned Single Judge of this Court unless it is shown to be perverse and not based on sound reasoning. Obviously, the owner of the vehicle has not preferred any appeal to the High Court against the findings of the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has adverted to the evidence and concurred with the finding of fact arrived at by the tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and causing the accident. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Single Judge as it is based on sound reasoning of evidence recorded by the Tribunal.

( 7 ) IT is mainly contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance Company that the compensation awarded by the learned Single Judge of this court is on higher side and, therefore, the same has to be reduced. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge erred in awarding more compensation than that of the amount claimed in the O. P.

( 8 ) BEFORE adverting to the aforesaid contention, it is necessary to know the basis on which the compensation has to be awarded. The Court has to grant a just compe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document