Back
2016 Supreme(AP) 414
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO & B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, JJ.
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Legal Manager – Appellant
Versus
S. Sunitha @ R. Sunitha & Others – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. No. 471 of 2016
Decided On : 13-04-2016
For the Appellant :T. Mahender Rao, Advocate.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicle Act,1988 – Section 166 – Accident – Compensation – Award – Liability of Insurance company – When liable – Impugning the award passed in favour of the four claimants from the date of claim petition till date of decree and later at 6% p.a. by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-II Additional Chief Judge, the 2nd respondent- Insurer preferred the present appeal – Appeal respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are no other than wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased by name S.Prabhu Santhoshkumar, aged about 32 years. They filed said claim petition for Rs.80,00,000/-(Rupees Eighty lakhs only) under Section 166 of Act,1988 against owner of the Maruti Suzuki 5th respondent to the appeal and the appellant-Insurer herein – As per the claim petition, it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime car stated supra belongs to the 5th respondent herein, the car dashed the bike of the deceased Prabhu Santhoshkumar while he was proceeding on his bike and was taken to Hospital immediately after the accident, however, he was succumbed to the injuries meantime – Held, Coming to the rate of interest, the interest at 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till date of award and later at 6% p.a. till date of realisation awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, though rate of interest to be awarded in a given case is within the discretion of the tribunal, but the said discretion has to be exercised justly and a reasonable rate should be awarded, the appellate Court can interfere with the same to modify it to a reasonable rate. The Court has to take judicial notice of the f Acts that, nationalized banks are not offering interest at 9%p.a. even long term F.D.Rs now-a-days. From the settled propositions of law including from the settled expression of the Apex Court in Raja Priya supra taking note of steep fall in bank lending rates in the recent past, the interest is awarded at 9%p.a. was reduced to 7.5%p.a. as just and reasonable; though in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation [2009 ACJ 1298] interest awarded is only at 6%p.a. and in the latest expression of the three judge Bench of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh [2013(4)ALT 35(SC)], it is held categorically that it is reasonable to award rate of interest at 7.5% p.a. Hence, the rate of interest is modified to 7½% p.a. uniformly from date of claim petition till realisation instead of 12% p.a. from date of claim petition till date of award and thereafter 6% p.a. till realization as awarded by the Tribunal – Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is disposed of before admission while setting aside the finding of the tribunal on contributory negligence of deceased and car driver equally and held the accident was the result of only due to the rash and negligent driving of car driver however, by not interfering with the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal for same is no way excessive, but for modifying the rate of interest from 12%p.a.from the date of the claim petition filed before the tribunal till date of award and thereafter at 6% p.a. till realization, to 7.5% p.a. from date of claim petition till realization – Appeal is disposed of.
B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.
1. Impugning the award dated 27.10.2015 in O.P.No.224 of 2014 passed in favour of the four claimants for Rs.34,50,000/-(Rupees thirty four lakhs fifty thousand only) with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of claim petition till date of decree and later at 6% p.a. by the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-II Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court (for short, ‘Tribunal’), Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent-Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (for short, ‘Insurer’), rep. by its Legal Manager, of the O.P.No.224 of 2014, preferred the present appeal.
2. The appeal respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are no other than wife, minor daughter and parents of the deceased by name S.Prabhu Santhoshkumar, aged about 32 years. They filed said claim petition for Rs.80,00,000/-(Rupees Eighty lakhs only) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) against owner of the Maruti Suzuki bearing No.AP15TV 3065 (5th respondent to the appeal) and the appellant-Insurer herein.
3. As per the claim petition, it was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime car stated supra belongs to the 5th respondent herein, the car dashed the bike of the deceased Prabhu Santhoshkumar while he was proceeding on his bike on 19.11.2013 at about 21.45 hours near Abhimanyu Bar, Vaidehinagar, Vanasthalipuram and was taken to Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad immediately after the accident, however, he was succumbed to the injuries meantime.
4. The 1st respondent-owner of the car Smt. K.Laxmi remained ex-parte before the tribunal and the 2nd respondent-Insurer supra contested the matter by filing counter while disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation, earnings of the deceased, entitlement of compensation and any negligence on the part of driver of the car, contending that the deceased was in drunken condition and the accident was taken place due to his sole negligence and otherwise as per rough sketch there was collusion between the two vehicles, there is no valid registration of the car and driver of the car has no valid licence in seeking to dismiss the claim.
5. It is pursuant to the pleadings before the tribunal and in the course of enquiry, the 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and two more persons including P.W.2 (so called eye witness to the accident) were examined and placed reliance on Exs.A.1 to A.15 including First Information Report, Charge-sheet, Inquest report, post mortem report, M.V.I. report, rough sketch, employment certificate, pay slip, salary sheet, SSC and decree with provisional certificates, marriage certificate driving licence and Insurance policy.
6. Basing on said oral and documentary evidence and on hearing both sides, the tribunal in awarding compensation with interest referred supra, observed that P.W.2 eye witness in the cross-examination stated the road was busy road and the accident was taken place at the turning point and the deceased was proceeding on straight road at 40 kms speed and to take right turn the vehicle must go slow and by taking right turn the car was not called proceeding in wrong route, he did not state before police that the car was in wrong side; for R.W.1 to say the accident was due to negligence of deceased admittedly he has no personal knowledge and R.W.2 other witness deposed that he cannot say whether the car dashed the two wheeler or vice-versa as the occurrence was in seconds of time and he cannot say who was at fault. The M.V.I. report is with the opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the car. The rough sketch shows the scene of offence is at one corner of the four road junction and the car was taking right turn from Vijayapuri colony towards Vaidehinagar road where the accident occurred near junction from both the vehicles colluded due to negligence of drivers of both the vehicles. The tribunal therefrom held that the deceased-bike rider also contributed to the accident
