MADISHETTY SHOBHA RANI Vs. J. SAIDULU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Claimant, wife of the deceased by name Sri M.Manikyam, filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award (Common Order in O.P.1301 and 1407 of 2000) of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.Nos.1407 of 2000 dated 22.08.2002, awarding compensation of Rs.1,40,200/-(Rupees one lakh forty thousand two hundred only) as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only), against respondent Nos.1 and 2 viz., owner and Insurer of crime vehicle for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, 'the Act'), amended as per MACMAMP No.5732 of 2013 order dated 29.11.2013 to comply by payment of Deficit Court Fee by dated 06.12.2013,enhancement of claim to Rs.6,00,000/-.

(2.) Heard Sri M.Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-The New India Assurance Company Limited (Insurer of crime vehicle) Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4, the appeal against 1st respondent- owner of crime vehicle (Auto) is dismissed for default. In this regard, in M.Chakra Rao v. Y.Baburao, 2001 1 ALT 495, the Division Bench of this Court at para-12 held that statutory liability of the insurance company, in the absence of the owner of the crime vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Harijana Babakka, 1992 2 ALT 155 for fixing statutory liability, the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary. The same was also quoted with approval in G.Aravind Kumar v. Md Sadat Ali, 2011 4 ALD 804. Thus, the contention that the appeal is not maintainable without impleading owner of the vehicle as co-respondent against the insurer of the vehicle is not sustainable and thereby it can be taken up for hearing. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(3.) The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during course of hearing in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount and the interest taken only 9%p.a. instead of 12% and went wrong in not taking earnings of deceased at Rs.3,000/- p.m. but taken Rs.9,00/- p.m. and not properly awarded for loss of consortium, loss of estate, loss of love, affection, care and protection etc., and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for, whereas it is the contention of the insurer-the main contestant to the appeal that for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere in enhancing the quantum of compensation, but for if at all to reduce the rate of interest from 9% p.a. to 7 1/2% p.a. as per the settled expression more particularly from the fact of no proof filed from the kirana business like any Registration Certificate, licence or professional tax and thereby sought for dismissal of the appeal with costs.