IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2841 of 2003 Between: APSRTC rep., by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. ..... Appellant AND Smt. Sandaveni Rajeshwari & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Ms. Niveditha for Sri P. Sridhar Reddy (SC for APSRTC) Counsel for respondents 1-5: Sri V.S.S. Pavaki for Sri V. Subrahmanyam The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2841 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation filed the present appeal feeling aggrieved by award dated 24.01.2003 in O.P.No.606 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Adilabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). I have heard Ms. Niveditha representing Sri P. Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the appellant Corporation and Sri V.S.S. Pavaki representing the respondents. One Sandaveni Rayamallu, aged 35 years, who was working as a loading mazdoor, died in an accident involving the bus of the appellant Corporation. The Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Corporation and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- in all towards compensation under various heads as against the claim of Rs.4,50,000/- made by the respondents. At the haring, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation. However, on a careful consideration of the entire material including the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in conformity with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] in all respects. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this submission. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded 9% interest, which is excessive and that the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (supra) has awarded 6% interest. In my opinion, in the absence of specific stipulation of percentage of interest, the discretion is always vested with the Tribunals in awarding reasonable interest. Even in Sarla Verma (supra), the Supreme Court has not laid down as a proposition of law that award of interest in excess of 6% is illegal. Invariably, in all awards passed prior to the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra), the Tribunals had been awarding interest varying between 7.5% and 9%. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the quantum of interest awarded by the Tribunal. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.10.2010 ES [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 SC