JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The insurer of the vehicle (tipper) bearing No. ATN 3221 filed this C.M.A., aggrieved by the order, dated 8-4-2002, passed in O.P. No. 150 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV A.D.J.) Guntur.
2. The first respondent filed the O.P. claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation. He stated that on 19-5-1991, he boarded a van bearing No. MDA 4871 at his village with a view to go to Narasaraopet, Guntur District and at about 10.30 a.m., when the van reached Satuluru Village and crossed a lorry coming from the opposite direction, the tipper came in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the van. Five persons are said to have died and that he sustained injuries to all his limbs. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet and thereafter, referred to Government General Hospital, Guntur. It was pleaded that he was on bed for seven months and still his hands and legs did not become functional to the level of normalcy. Claiming that he was dependent upon his daily earnings through labour and that he had become crippled, he prayed for award of compensation on several heads.
3. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The O.P. was opposed by the appellant alone.
4. Apart from pleading the non-existence of any negligence on the part of the driver of the tipper, a plea was taken as to non-joinder of necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the van, in which the first respondent travelled. Through the order under appeal, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 2,41,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest at 9% p.a.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the O.P. itself was not maintainable for more reasons than the one. She contends that it was filed nearly seven years after the accident and that the necessary parties, namely the owner and insurer of the van, were not impleaded. Further contention is raised to the effect that the driver of the tipper was, at the most, guilty of contributory any negligence and the entire liability ought not to have been fastened upon the appellant. It is also stated that the award of compensation and the rate of interest are excessive.
6. The learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the other hand, submits that the appellant is an illiterate villager without any assistance, worth its name, and that he became virtually crippled and thereby could not present the O.P. within the time. He contends that once the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the driver of the tipper was responsible for the accident, the absence of the owner and insurer of the van as parties to the O.P. does not make any difference. He submits that the compensation was determined and awarded on the basis of the settled principles and that no interference is warranted.
7. It is true that the accident took place on 19-5-1991, and the O.P. was presented on 9-2-1998. Before Sub-section (3) of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was omitted by the Parliament through Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994, the claim petitions were required to be presented within the time stipulated therein. With the deletion of Sub-section (3), no such restriction exists. The question as to whether the benefit of the deletion is available only to the victims of accident that took place after the amendment, or even to the victims of the accidents that have taken place earlier thereto, stood resolved by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya (1996) 4 SCC 652 : 1996 (3) ALD (SCSN) 44. It was held that the benefit of the amendment would be available to all the victims irrespective of the date of accident. Though the limitation as such is relaxed, the Tribunal can still examine the matter from the point of view of laches. If there was wilful, negligent and un-explained delay, the Tribunal can refuse to entertain the O.P.
8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the first respondent suffered injuries to all the four limbs and became crippled for all practical purposes. He is an un-educated villager and there were none to help him. At any rate, the appellant did not seriously pursue the ground of laches before the Tribunal.
9. So far as the non-joinder of parties is concerned, it would have become relevant from the point of view of the second respondent, in the context of recovery of amount, in the event of the Tribunal holding the owner or insurer of the van responsible either wholly or partly for the accident. As long as no such finding was recorded, it hardly makes any difference whether they are impleaded in the O.P., or not.
10. Serious effort is made by the learned Counsel for the appellant to attack the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding the driver of the tipper, exclusively liable for the accident. The second respondent stated in detail, the manner in which the accident took place. It totally tallied with the contents of the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet, which are marked as Exs. Al and A2. Being part with record of Courts, the contents of F.I.R. and charge-sheet have their own significance. The Tribunal had undertaken extensive discussion in arriving at the conclusion. On its part, the appellant did not choose to summon the driver of the tipper. When an allegation is made against the driver, as to his negligence, it was expected of the driver to disprove the allegation, once the second respondent had adduced evidence in support of this plea. In such an event, the driver would have been in a position to assess the relative probabilities. Appreciation of evidence, in such cases radically differs from the one in criminal cases, where the accused is conferred with the right to remain silent, and the burden is placed entirely upon the prosecution. When the driver did not choose to appear, nor did the appellant choose to summon him, the Tribunal was virtually left with no alternative. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is to be seen that undisputedly, the first respondent underwent prolonged treatment for months and years together. Even after ten years of the accident, he did not return to normalcy. The impact of such injuries on a person, who is solely dependent upon his physical labour, can easily be imagined. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 2,41,000/- as compensation.
12. The interest was awarded at 9% p.a. In the recent past, the Supreme Court has been normally awarding the interest at such claims as 7.5%. To that extent, the rate of interest deserves to be slashed down.
13. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a. In all other respects, the award shall hold good.