HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2018 passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mancherial (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 04.10.2016 the deceased was proceeding to Luxettipet on his motorcycle bearing No.TS-01ED-2573 and when he reached near Itikyaal bus stop, at around 7:30 p.m., the Bolero Vehicle bearing No.TS-07ED-8771 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he fell down, sustained head injury and died on the spot. The petitioner sought Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation. 4) The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5) The respondent No.2 and 3 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. Respondent No.2 being the owner of the vehicle has submitted that since his vehicle is insured with the respondent No.3, he is not liable to pay compensation if any, and that it is only respondent No.3 that would be liable. The Respondent No.3 has contended that the driver of the Bollero Vehicle does not have a valid driving license and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation, 6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether Baddapuri Sridhar died in the accident that occurred on

04.10.2016 at about 7:30 p.m., near Itikyaal Village?

2) Whether the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Bolero bearing No.TS07ED-8771?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation for the accidental death of Baddapuri Sridhar, if so how much? And against which of the respondents?

4) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.32,12,710/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri K. Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has committed error in quantifying the compensation and that the Tribunal has arrived at exorbitant amount in computing the loss of dependency and further made errors in calculation. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded interest @12% which is too excessive and has prayed to reduce the interest to 7.5%. He therefore, submitted that by applying the guidelines of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others¹ just compensation may be awarded to the deceased by setting aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

11. The learned respondent counsel has submitted that the arithmetical errors may be corrected, but the interest need not be reduced.

12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether there are any errors in computation of compensation by the Tribunal ?

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) A perusal of the record reveals that the Tribunal has assessed that the deceased was working as Operator in Electricity Sub Station and that he was drawing a salary of Rs.13,445/- per month. The salary is not in dispute as he is a Government Employeee and his Salary Certificate is also filed under Ex.A7.

b) Further the date of birth of the deceased is revealed as 11.11.1982 as per the SSC Certificate. As per the dicta laid down in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay S