1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.236 of 2017 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short “the Tribunal”).
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.01.2017 at about 4.00 p.m., the claimant was returning from Suryapet town after attending coolie work on his TVS Star City motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-H- 7403 towards Mangali Thanda, and when he reached the outskirts of Kotiya, a Maruti Suzuki car bearing No.TS-29-2229, driven in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed by the respondent No.1, dashed his motorcycle. As a result, the claimant fell down on the road and suffered serious fracture and multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Suryapet and thereafter referred to Kamineni Hospital, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, where he underwent medical treatment as an inpatient. Stating that he spent a considerable amount towards medical expenses and sustained permanent disability, the claimant filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, before the Tribunal claiming compensation.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the Maruti Suzuki car, remained ex parte. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation, income of the injured, and quantum of compensation claimed, and contended that the driver of the car was not having a valid and effective driving licence, that there was a clear violation of policy conditions, and that there was contributory negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle, and therefore, the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A10 on behalf of the claimant and Ex.B1 on behalf of the insurer, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by respondent No.1 and awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,06,378/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization, holding respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of accident, which amounts to a clear breach of policy conditions. It is also contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider and the Tribunal erred in fastening liability upon the insurer despite such violations. Learned Standing Counsel further contends that the quantum awarded is excessive, and that in any event, the rate of interest awarded at 9% per annum is excessive. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mannat Johal and others(AIR 2019 SC 2079), has fixed 7.5% per annum as a reasonable rate of interest in motor accident claim cases, and therefore, the impugned award needs to be modified accordingly.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 herein/claimant submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reasonable and based on proper appreciation of evidence. It is contended that the claimant sustained permanent disability at 45% due to the grievous fracture injuries and underwent severe treatment, thereby justifying the award granted by the Tribunal. He further submits that the insurer has not produced any cogent evidence to establish that the driver was not duly licensed or that there was willful breach by the insured.
8. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car. The criminal case records including the FIR and charge sheet also support the said finding. The Tribunal considered the medical evidence of doctors PW.2 and PW.3, permanent disability certificate under Ex.A8, and the bills filed under Ex.A9, and awarded compensation under various heads including permanent disability, pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of income as follows:
| Head of Compensation | Amount (Rs.) |
| Loss of Future Earnings due to Disability | 6,80,400 |
| Pain, Suffering and Extra Nourishment | 1,00,000 |
| Loss of Income for three months | 13,500 |
| Medical Expenses | 12,478 |
| Total | 8,06,378 |
9. As regards the contention that the driver did not possess a valid licence and that there was contributory negligence, the Insurance Company neither examined any official witness to substantiate the alleged breach nor produced any cogent evidence to prove negligence on the part of the motorcycle rider. Mere assertions do not by themselves absolve the insurer of liability in the absence of proof of willful violation by the insured. Hence, the Tribunal rightly fastened joint and several liability on respondent Nos.1 to 3.
10. However, insofar as the rate of interest is concerned, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. In Mannat Johal’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the appropriate rate of interest in motor accident claims shall be 7.5% per annum. Therefore, the rate of 9% per annum awarded by the Tribunal requires modification.
11. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed in all other respects except the rate of interest, which is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The remaining terms and conditions of the award regarding deposit and withdrawal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.