THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No.4169 of 2014 And M.A.C.M.A No.598 of 2019

COMMON JUDGMENT:

In these cross appeals, the Award dated 31.10.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, in M.V.O.P. No.362 of 2012 is under challenge. Videthe impugned Award, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.19,32,350/-, with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5%,to the claimants/dependents of the deceased Rajaram, from the date of petition till the date of actual deposit, and directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein (i.e., Reliance General Insurance Company) to deposit the compensation within thirty 30 days of the Award. The Tribunal also apportioned the compensation amongst the claimants/dependents of the deceased Rajaram. Aggrieved by the Award, the Reliance General Insurance Company filed MACMA No.4169 of 2014; and the claimants/dependents of the deceased filed MACMA No.598 of 2019.

For convenience of discussion, the parties will henceforth be referred as insurance company, and claimants.

2. Heard Mr. T. Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company; and Mr. A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the claimants. Perused the record.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company essentially contends that the accident was due to head-on collision between the 2- wheeler (AP-25D-7779), and Car (MH-34K-1726), and therefore the Tribunal ought to have held that there is contributory negligence on the part of the rider of 2-wheeler as well, on which the deceased was a pillion rider; and the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was due to negligence of the driver of Car. It is contended that the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards loss of consortium to claimant No.1-wife, and Rs.20,000/- each to the claimants 2 to 4, is excessive. Further, the interest of 7.5% per annum is also excessive, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, 1(2009) 6 SCC 121.He also relies on the judgment of this Court in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan, 2006 ACJ 855,in support of his contention on contributory negligence that head-on collision takes place only when the drivers of both the vehicles are negligent. He also relies on Gita Mondal vs. Jagga Singh, 2016 ACJ 1785

4. Learned counsel for the claimants, on the contrary, contends that the Tribunal had appreciated the evidence and gave a finding that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the rider of 2-wheeler that resulted in the death of the deceased. He contends that the Tribunal erred in taking net salary of the deceased, instead of gross salary; and further no amounts were awarded toward loss of estate, funeral expenses etc., and hence the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation. He relies on the judgment in United India Insurance Co., vs. K. Anjaiah, 2004 (4 ) ALD 444; Anjana

Narayan Kamble vs. Branch manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 2022 LawSuit (SC) 1376; Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Majda Khatoon, 2016 ACJ 2028; Anjana Narayan Kamble vs. Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, 72022 LawSuit (SC) 1376

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of accident on 30.04.2008 at 5:30 AM involving a 2-wheeler (AP-25D-7779) and a Car (MH-34K-1726) wherein a head-on collision had taken place, is not in dispute. In relation to the accident, a case was registered in Crime No.62 of 2008 of Asifabad Police Station, and after investigation, charge sheet was filed.

6. With regard to contributory negligence, the Tribunal had recorded that PW-2 (who was LW-12 in the charge sheet) deposed in his evidence that on 30.04.2008 at 05.:30 AM, PW-2 was in front of his hut, and he witnessed that a car came at high speed, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed the motorcycle; and tha