(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High CourtAggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2018 in O.P.No.604 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to condone the delay of 73 days in representing the above S.R

IA NO: 2 OF 2019

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to stay of all further proceedings including the execution of the decree in M.V.O.P.No. 604 of 2017 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa dated 4-9-2018 pending disposal of the above M.A.C.M.A. and pass.)

1. The United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal having aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal through its order dated 04.09.2018 in MVOP.No.604 of 2017, on the file of Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kadapa.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred before the Tribunal.

3. The petitioner filed claim petition seeking to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-, on account of the death of her husband Vallepu Chinna Venkataiah @ Bathala Venkataiah in the accident that occurred on 09.05.2017. It was the case of the petitioner that, on the said date the deceased was travelling as pillion rider on TVS Star City Motor Cycle bearing registration No.AP04-BH-0519 belonging to one Sri D.Sreenu. When they reached near Patameedapalli Village on Kadapa-Kurnool main road, the offending lorry bearing registration No.TN29-BB-9371 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle on which the petitioner was travelling as pillion rider from behind. As a result of which, the deceased and the rider of the motor cycle fell down on the road and died on the spot. A case in Cr.No.210 of 2017 under Section 304-A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending lorry. It was further case of the petitioner that, the deceased was aged 55 years, he was hale and healthy and was working as mason earning Rs.500/- per day, as on the date of the accident. The entire income of the deceased was being contributed to the family and in view of his sudden demise, the petitioner lost the source of income, in those circumstances, she filed the above petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-together with interest.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 who are the driver and the owner of the offending lorry remained ex-parte. The 3rd respondent insurance company filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle inasmuch as he drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed. It was further averred that, the income of the deceased was denied and the compensation claimed by the petitioner was excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, she was examined as PW.1 and one Sri D.Govindu, eye witness to the accident was examined as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on her behalf. On the other hand, the respondents neither adduced any oral evidence nor placed any documentary evidence. Considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, by order under challenge granted compensation of Rs.11,66,200/-, together with interest @6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the insurance company.

6. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

7. Perused the record.

8. Though various grounds are raised in the present appeal, during the course of hearing, the counsel for the appellant has given up all the other grounds, except the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, this Court is not going to deal with the other grounds except the quantum.

9. The counsel for the appellant would strenuously contend that, though the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, the Tribunal had awarded Rs.11,66,200/-. He would further submit that, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded over and above the compensation claimed by the claimant. He would further submit that, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased as Rs.300/- per day and accordingly awarded the compensation, despite there was no material placed on record. On the other hand, the counsel for the claimant would submit that, it was specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was mason by avocation, and was earning Rs.500/- per day. He would further submit that, however, the Tribunal had not taken the same into consideration in view of the fact that, no documentary evidence was placed before it. In such circumstances, the Tribunal had fixed the income of the deceased notionally as Rs.300/- per day, inasmuch as the accident was occurred in the year, 2017. Though, the counsel for the appellant contended that, the income taken by the Tribunal was excessive, this Court does not accept the said contention, in view of the fact that during the year 2017, minimum wage for a cooli was definitely not less than Rs.300/- per day. In such circumstances, the order under challenge cannot be found fault with. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramla and Others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited ((2019) 2 SCC 192), had held that the Tribunal/Court has duty bound to pay just compensation to the claimants. It was further held that, merely because a lesser amount is sought for by the claimant, one shall not be denied a higher compensation, if the claimant is otherwise entitled to under law. In such circumstances, the contention of the counsel for the appellant in this regard is also liable to be rejected. Further, during the course of hearing, the counsel for the claimant would submit that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal had granted interest @6% per annum. He would further submit that, this Court consistently is awarding interest @7.5%, especially while dealing with the matters arising out of beneficial legislations. This Court is in complete agreement with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the claimants and accordingly, the rate of interest is enhanced from 6% to 7.5%. In that view of the matter, the appellant is directed to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Further, the said amount is directed to be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

10. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is dismissed, however, with the observations as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.