KOLLA VENKATESWARLU Vs. ABDUL KAREEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.30,000/- from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No.ABW 2293 alleging that the driver of that lorry, due to his rash and negligent driving, caused damage to his pan shop. First respondent chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal. Appeal against him (first respondent) stood dismissed for default for non-payment of process as per the order dated 17-2-2000. Second respondent filed counter, inter alia, contending that its liability is limited to an extent of Rs.6,000/-. In support of his case, appellant examined himself as P.W.I and another witness as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of second respondent. The Tribunal having held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the first respondent, passed an award for Rs.20,000/- in favour of the appellant against both the respondents with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of award till date of deposit. Aggrieved by the Tribunal not awarding interest on the compensation awarded to him, the claimant preferred this appeal.

(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'), the Tribunal was in error in awarding interest on the compensation awarded only from the date of award and not from the date of filing of the petition.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for second respondent is that the Tribunal was in error in fastening the liability for the entire amount of Rs.20,000/- on the second respondent without keeping in view Section 147(2)(b) of the Act. In reply, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since second respondent did not file any cross appeal or cross objections questioning the award of the Tribunal, award cannot be modified restricting the liability of second respondent to Rs.6,000/-.