IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2300 of 2003 Between: Vadde Pedda Muthyalappa @ Muthyalappa .. Appellant AND V. Venkateswarlu and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.118 of 1997 passed in pursuance of the common order dated 16-08-2002 in O.P.No.110 of 1997 and batch on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapur. The accident to a lorry on 28-02-1996 at about 7.00 P.M. near Rekulakunta village led to the batch of claim petitions with O.P.No.118 of 1997 being at the instance of the claimant aged about 45 years claimed to be earning Rs.100/- per day as a labourer. The claimant claimed to have received grievous injuries on the left leg and head and suffered a permanent disability for which he claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. In all the cases, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, while the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimants and claiming the claimant herein and others to be passengers for hire, who are not covered by the insurance policy. The insurer contested the claim on other grounds also. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility of the driver, with his rash and negligent driving, for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant in each case to compensation and jointly tried all the claims arising out of the same accident. During the enquiry, it examined PWs.1 to 6 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.B.1. In the impugned common order, the Tribunal firstly concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry for which purpose it relied on the evidence of the claimants themselves including PW.1, who was cleaner of the lorry. The Tribunal assessed the just and adequate compensation payable in each case and in respect of O.P.No.118 of 1997, the claimant examined as PW.4 was noted to have suffered one fracture and to have not produced any evidence to show the expenses of his treatment. He was accordingly granted Rs.15,000/- towards compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of award till the date of realisation. The grievance of the claimant in this appeal is not only about the compensation for the grievous fracture being meagre and non-grant of any medical expenses or damages for pain and suffering, but also about the non-grant of any interest from the date of petition. Heard Sri G. Ramamohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the insurer. The owner of the lorry did not enter appearance before this Court also. The point for consideration is whether just and adequate compensation was not awarded to the claimant? Insofar as the compensation awarded at Rs.15,000/- for one fracture received by PW.4 is concerned, PW.4 admitted that he did not file any record to show the expenditure of Rs.45,000/- for his treatment as claimed. He did not produce any other record except Ex.A.6-wound certificate to show the nature and length of treatment at the Government Headquarters Hospital, Ananthapur or at Kurnool or Bangalore as claimed by him for the injuries disclosed by Ex.A.6-wound certificate. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/-, which cannot be considered to be low in the absence of any other evidence and the non-grant of any other heads of damages is due to the absence of any evidence in that regard. The only grievance of substance can be considered to be non-grant of interest on the compensation awarded from the date of petition as permitted by Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. That provision gave the judicial discretion to the Tribunal to award such interest at such rate considered reasonable from a date not earlier than the date of making the claim. When the beneficial legislation makes grant of interest permissible from the date of making the claim, the provision ought to have been liberally applied in favour of the claimant/injured and if it were not so, the Tribunal should have specified specific reasons for confining the interest from the date of award. If after the accident on 28-02- 1996 and filing of the claim in 1997, the determination of the claim petition took time till 16-08-2002, the passage of time cannot be laid at the door of the claimant alone and the claimant cannot be deprived of interest for that period. Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the insurer also protested against the rate of interest granted at 9% p.a., but, at this distance of time, interference with the rate of interest may not be called for when the same is not excessively higher than the prevailing rates of interest on lending or borrowing by Nationalized Banks then or now. The interest has to be, therefore, awarded to the claimant from the date of petition instead of from the date of award at the same rate as permitted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award in O.P.No.118 of 1997 dated 16-08- 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Ananthapur, is modified by awarding interest at 9% p.a. on the compensation awarded from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-08-2011 Ksn