United India Fire and Genl. Ins. Co. Ltd. vs Pallapu Sridevi and Others

G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.—On 26.9.1980 when a seven-year-old girl was returning after purchase of biscuits in Nelakondapally, a lorry from Kodad side came and dashed against her due to rash and negligent driving which resulted in amputation of left leg up to the knee. Though the accident had occurred on 26.9.1980., the petitioner-claimant filed the condone delay petition on 25.4.1986. The Tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record granted a sum of Rs. 91,000/- towards compensation. As against that the Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that prior to 1982, even in case matters pending in the Court, the liability of the Insurance Company is only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and not Rs. 1,50,000/- as amended in the year 1982. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ratan Prakash Rao and Another, . However, it must be borne in mind that the date of the accident is the crucial date that has to be taken into account in fixing the statutory liability. In the instant case, accident took place on 26.9.1980. As on that date, the liability of the Insurance Company is only Rs. 50,000/-, even in case of disposal of the case subsequent to 1982. Though the matter is registered subsequent to 1982, as the relevant date of the accident is 26.9.1980, the same has to be taken into account for fixing the liability of the Insurance Company. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contends that in view of Section 110-CC the Tribunal has got power to grant interest only from the date of the filing of the petition. The mere fact that condonation of delay was ordered it does not mean that the Tribunal has got power to grant interest from the date of the accident. The claimants themselves are responsible for the delay that occurred and, therefore, they cannot expect to have the double advantage of condoning the delay and also the interest from an anterior date. The Tribunal ought to have passed the order granting payment of interest from the date of filing of the petition but not anterior thereto. The order of the Tribunal granting interest from 26.9.1980 is modified and the claimants are entitled for interest from the date of the registration of the case. Mr. N.V. Suryanarayana Murthy, the learned Counsel for the appellant, contends that the parties cannot be allowed to have more compensation than the agreement that has been arrived at before the Lok Adalat. It is for the Court to decide the reasonable compensation and the agreement, if any, entered before the Lok Adalat will not come in the way of the Court for granting reasonable compensation. This is a case of amputation of a leg of a young girl of seven years. In the circumstances of the case, I feel that the award of a sum of Rs. 91,000/- passed by the Court below is not on high side. The appeal is allowed in part. No costs.