IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THIS THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2010 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2302 of 2003 Between The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager …APPELLANT(S) A N D S.Rangeen Basha and another …RESPONDENT(S) THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2302 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Cuddapah (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.216 of 1999, by order and decree, dated 18.10.2000, for the injuries sustained by the petitioner therein, in a road accident that occurred on 29.05.1998, the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The appellant is the insurer, 1st respondent is the claimant and 2nd respondent is the owner of motorcycle. 4. The particulars regarding the method and the manner in which the accident took place are not referred to herein as they are not in dispute. 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.1,19,250/- towards compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently contends that the Tribunal erred in awarding a compensation of Rs.1,19,250/- without restricting the same to Rs.1,00,000/- as was claimed by the claimant. It is also contended that the Tribunal was in error in calculating the income of the claimant as a tailor at the rate of Rs.70/- per day and that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is also on higher side. 7. The only point that arises for consideration, in this appeal, is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified? 8. I have carefully gone through the impugned award, passed by the Tribunal, along with the material, available on record. It is observed that the claimant claimed the total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- i.e., Rs.1,00,000/-, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the Act. The Tribunal, having elaborately dealt with all the aspects, taking into consideration the nature of injuries and number of injuries suffered by the claimant and the duration of treatment, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.2,500/- towards transportation charges, Rs.2,500/- towards medicines and extra nourishment, Rs.7,500/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.7,500/- towards permanent disability and for artificial limbs, Rs.89,250/- towards loss of future earnings, and awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,19,250/-. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, while granting the compensation, and there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned award. 9. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum is on higher side. Therefore, the same is reduced from 12% to 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. In all other aspects and respects, the impugned order shall remain unaltered. 10. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 05th AUGUST 2010 CVRK