HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 3615 of 2002 DATED: 30.07.2010 Between: NarellaKrishna Goud .. Appellant/ Claimant And 1. Vasamsetti Nageswara Rao 2. Mullapudi Bapineedu 3. The Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd. .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order, dated 30.07.2002 made in M.V.O.P. No. 538 of 1998 whereby the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, having considered the evidence both oral and documentary, allowed the petition in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,88,269/- to the claimant with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of deposit. The facts of the case in brief are that on 19.04.1998, the appellant, who is a final year Engineering student in J.N.T.U. Engineering College, Kakinada, while retuning home along with his friend on his Hero Honda Motorcycle from his friend’s house and when they reached Thota Subbarao Nagar, an Ambassador Car bearing No. AP5M 299 driven by the 1st respondent-driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction and dashed against the two- wheeler motorcycle, as a result, both the rider and the pillion rider of motorcycle fell down. The appellant sustained fracture to both bones of his right leg and multiple injuries all over his body. Hence, the appellant claimed Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation. However, the Insurance company resisted the claim. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, based on the pleadings, framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent-driver of Ambassador Car No.AP5M 299? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? The claimant, in order to substantiate his claim for compensation, got himself examined as PW1 besides examining PWs.2 and 3 – Doctors, who treated and performed operations on him, and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. However, no witnesses were examined except marking of Ex.B1 – Insurance policy by consent on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. The Tribunal, after framing necessary issues, gave a finding that the 1st respondent- driver, was rash and negligent in driving the car and was responsible for the accident, and accordingly awarded compensation as stated supra. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the claimant was hospitalised, became disabled, suffered fracture on right leg resulting in the change in the pattern of walking and not able to carry on with his daily activities, as such, he pleads for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has already granted excessive compensation under all the heads as claimed by the appellant, and therefore, the appeal for enhancement of the same is ill-conceived and the same may be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the appellant-clamant suffered fracture to both the bones of his right leg in the accident and was treated at Bijapur Hospital, Karnataka. He also underwent bone-grafting operation at Hyderabad Image Hospitals and was also treated at Udai Clinic and underwent four operations. It is the evidence of PW3 – Dr.Viswanadha Reddy that bone-grafting operation was done and nails and steel plates were inserted and the injured suffered temporary disability of 10%. Taking into consideration the above facts, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,875/- towards transportation charges; Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.54,694/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and mental agony and Rs.1,07,700/- towards loss of opportunities and anticipated disability. Thus, the appellant was awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,88,269/- with interest at 9% p.a. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court feels that there is every scope for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, as such, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance Rs.5000/- towards transportation charges; Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and 42,300/- towards loss of opportunities and anticipated disability in view of the fact that the appellant-claimant was preparing for defence service, but due to the accident, he has lost the opportunity and suffered fracture on right leg which resulted change in his pattern of walking and not able to carry on with his daily activities. Thus, a total amount of Rs.57,300/- is enhanced, making total compensation of Rs.2,45,569/- (Rs.1,88,269/- +Rs.57,3000/-) in favour of the appellant-claimant. However, in view of the decision reported in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation of India[1], this Court is inclined to reduce the interest awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation amount at the rate of 9% p.a. to 6% p.a., so far as the enhanced compensation amount is concerned. With the above modification of the impugned order, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J. 30th July, 2010 bcj [1] 2009(6) SCC 121