THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2118 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 30.09.2002, in M.O.P.No.201 of 2000, passed by the VI Additional District Judge- cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding compensation of Rs.1,24,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent-claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 28/29.04.1999 at about 12-00 p.m., near Cheedika Kothuru village on N.H.5 Road, Nakkapalli, Visakhapatnam, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, bearing No.AP 5T 1681, belonging to the 2nd respondent, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 3. The appellant herein is the insurer, 1st respondent is the claimant and 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending lorry. 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, awarded a sum of Rs.1,24,000/- towards compensation to the claimant. Hence the present appeal by the insurer. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- insurer that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the stationed lorry also. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 6. The claimant is a student by the date of accident. It is to be seen that as per Ex.A-6 disability certificate issued by P.W.2 doctor, the claimant suffered 40% partial disability. P.W.2 deposed that due to the injuries, there will be limp in walking of the claimant and there is abnormal gait. Another doctor was also examined as P.W.3 in order to prove that the claimant was admitted in the hospital and took treatment as per Exs.X-1 and X-2. Therefore, taking into consideration the disability suffered by the claimant at 40%, after estimating the annul income of the injured at Rs.15,000/-, by applying the multiplier ‘17’, the Tribunal has arrived at the loss of earnings of the claimant at Rs.1,02,000/-. Apart from that, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment. In all, a total sum of Rs.1,24,000/- was awarded towards compensation. 7. I do not find any irrationality in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. 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, exercising the jurisdiction under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, 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 order 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 22.07.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2118 of 2003 22.07.2010 (Msr)