IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3382 of 2003 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Branch Manager, Parbhani through Nizamabad branch ... APPELLANT AND B. Moji Ram and another ... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order and decree in O.P.No.316 of 1997, dated 09-04-2003, passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 31-01-1997, while the petitioner was traveling as a Gunman of the District Collector, Nizamabad, in a car bearing No.AP-25-A-3399, at about 1.30 a.m., a lorry bearing No.MH-22-299 came in opposite direction and dashed the car of the District Collector. On account of that the petitioner suffered injuries on his chest, right leg and other parts of the body. He also suffered fracture of right leg. He was admitted in A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Kamareddy, and from there he was referred to District Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad. He incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical treatment. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The insurance company – second respondent filed counter- affidavit and contested the matter. 4. Basing on the allegations and the counter allegations, the trial Court framed the following three issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.MH-22-299 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-17 were marked. 6. On the basis of the material available on record, the trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner shall be entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable to pay the same. 7. In this C.M.A., the quantum of compensation is seriously disputed by the appellant/respondent No.2. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is proper and justified. 9. There is no dispute that the petitioner has received injuries in discharge of his official duties. Learned counsel for the appellant – second respondent contends that the petitioner – claimant did not suffer any fracture, as claimed by him, and the amount of Rs.50,000/- spent towards medical treatment is highly exaggerated. He also contends that it is not clear as to on what basis the Medical Officer has given certificate saying that he suffered 30% disability when he never suffered any fracture or any other serious internal injury. He further contents that since the petitioner suffered only simple injury, may be he was hospitalized for some time. However, as the compensation awarded is very low, I deem it inexpedient to reduce the same as the petitioner suffered injuries while on his official duty. However, I am of the view that the rate of interest awarded by the Court below on the amount of compensation is slightly on higher side. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to reduce the same from 9% to 7.5% per annum. 10. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed, confirming the compensation awarded by the Court below, however, reducing the rate of interest is from 9 % per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. till realization. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 21, 2010 Pn THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3382 of 2003 June 21, 2010