THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.921 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 29.3.2001, in M.V.O.P.No.63 of 1997, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in allowing the petition filed by the 1st respondent-claimant seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 11.11.1995, at 10-00 a.m., due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the jeep, bearing No.AP 4727, belonging to the appellants, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants-State. 3. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in a road accident. The particulars regarding the method and manner in which the accident took place are not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, allowed the petition awarding Rs.5,00,000/- towards the compensation claimed. Hence the present appeal by the State. 4. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 5. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal with elaborate reasoning as regards the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. 6. Admittedly, the claimant sustained four fractures to his right leg. His ankle was twisted, he sustained injuries to both hands and multiple injuries all over the body. He took treatment at various hospitals. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are the doctors, who treated the claimant. On examination, all of them have deposed about the grievous nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment that was given to him. Because of the injuries sustained by him, the claimant is not able to walk. The doctors also estimated that there is 100% permanent disability. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as, the said aspect had elaborately been dealt with by the Tribunal while awarding the compensation. Therefore, I am not inclined to go into that aspect once again. 7. The cumulative effect of the accident is that the claimant cannot perform his duties as Typist normally and he cannot even walk properly. His movements are totally restricted for all times to come. The pain and suffering which the claimant underwent because of the injuries and the treatment in various hospitals on various occasions also should be taken into consideration. Taking into account the over all circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal had rightly estimated the amount of compensation and allowed the petition, awarding the total compensation claimed at Rs.5,00,000/-. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. However, it is to be seen that the Tribunal had awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. before the Tribunal, till realization. In my considered view, the said rate of interest is on higher side. Therefore, I am inclined to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% from the date of filing of the O.P., before the Tribunal, till realization. In all other aspects, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. 9. Subject to the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 08.07.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.921 of 2003 08.07.2010 (Msr)