HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1425 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: The National Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.No. 558 of 2000 dated 18.6.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 13,48,000/- as against which, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,10,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.7.1999 at about 1.30 PM when the claimant was coming to his house on his scooter, near Padmarao Nagar Park, a Maruthi Car of the first respondent-bearing No. AP 9N 9997 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from left side and dashed against his scooter. As a result of which, the claimant received grievous injuries on his head, left foot and his left ankle joint was exposed. Initially he was admitted in New City Hospital and later he was shifted to NIMS, where he was treated in intensive care unit by Neuro Surgeons. It is stated that the claimant at the time of accident he was aged 48 years and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by running a clinic under the name and style of Katta Rental Eye Clinic and accordingly he laid a claim for a total compensation of Rs. 13,48,000/-. Respondent No. 1 – owner of the Car remained ex parte and the second respondent- Insurance Company filed a counter denying all the allegations stating that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself and the injuries sustained by the claimant have healed completely and no effect on his earning capacity and the claim is highly exorbitant. During the pendency of the case, the claimant by amending the main petition sought for enhancement of compensation from Rs. 6,00,000 to Rs. 13,48,000/- alleging that during the pendency of the case he spent huge amount towards medical expenses and he lost his earning capacity due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor Vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 9N 9997? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs A1 to A13 were marked and on behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced to but Exs B1 Policy was marked. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the evidence available on record and also the evidence of PW-2 taken the disability of the claimant at 50% and also after taking into consideration that the claimant filed income tax returns for the year 1997-98 to 1999 to 2000 and after deducting expenses his net income per annum comes to Rs. 1,20,000/- as shown in Ex A-6 and the permanent disability for assessing the loss of income can be taken at 40% in monitory terms it comes to Rs. 48,000/- per annum (1,20,000/- x 40/100) and by applying the appropriate multiplier is ‘10’ for the age of 47 years, the disability comes to Rs. 4,80,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards transport charges and Rs. 15,000/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges totaling to Rs. 7,10,000/- (4,80,000 + 1,50,000 + 50,000 + 15,000 + 15,000). Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company filed the present appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in holding that the appellant is liable to pay compensation at Rs. 7,10,000 with interest at 9% per annum. He also states that as per Ex. A-6 the income tax returns filed for the year 1999-2000, the net income was shown as Rs. 81,213/-, therefore, the learned Judge ought to have taken the income of the claimant as Rs. 81,213/- per annum and also the learned Judge erred in awarding compensation towards past and future medical expenses as the medical bills Ex. A10 and A4 were not properly proved by examining the person who issued them. Heard the learned counsel and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 9N 9997 being driven by its driver. It is also no doubt true that due to accident, the claimant received grievous injuries on his head left foot and his left ankle joint was exposed. Doctors also conducted plastic surgery and after that he was again admitted into NIMS and he took treatment as inpatient for three weeks and still he has been taking treatment from Plastic Surgeons and Nuero Surgeons and he is unable to walk due to avulsion of left heel flap. It is also no doubt true that during the pendency of the case, the claimant by amending the main petition sought for enhancement of the compensation claimed from Rs. 6,00,000/- to Rs. 13,48,000/-. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the relevant material and also taking into consideration of the disability assessed correctly and granted a sum of Rs. 4,80,000/- as permanent disability. The compensation granted towards pain and suffering by the Tribunal, in my considered view, is on high side. Hence, the same is reduced to Rs. 40,000/- and for the medical expenses the Tribunal granted lump sum amount towards past and future medical expenses at Rs. 1,50,000/-, in my considered view is on high side therefore, the same may be reduced to Rs. 60,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal field by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 7,10,000/- to Rs. 6,00,000/- viz., compensation towards permanent disability at Rs. 4,80,000/- and towards pain and suffering at Rs. 40,000/- , and Medical Expenses of past and future at Rs. 60,000/- and towards transport charges at Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges totaling to Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rs.4,80,000/- + Rs. 40,000/- +Rs. 60,000 + Rs. 10,000 + Rs. 10,000/-) . The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the rate of interest at 9% granted by the Tribunal is on high side and the same may be reduced. I see some force in the contention. Taking into consideration catena of Supreme Court Judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 01.07.2010 KA