THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3358 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.P.No. 1068 of 2002, dated 7.5.2003 on the file of the III Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Warangal, the present C.M.A. is filed urging that the amount of compensation granted by the tribunal is very much excessive and the interest @ 9% granted by the tribunal is also excessive and placed reliance on the judgment reported in SARLA VERMA (SMT.) & OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & OTHERS[1]. Now the point for consideration is whether the amount granted by the lower Court is sustainable? During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent did not disputed the manner in which the accident had occurred. As seen from the impugned order, the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also discussed the evidence on record at length and came to the conclusion the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle involved in the accident, while placing reliance on the documentary evidence Exs.A-1 and A-3. Now the main issue is whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is sustainable? Ex.A-2 is the discharge report and Ex.A-6 is the case sheet issued by the M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal which shows that the petitioner was treated as inpatient for the injuries sustained by him. As per the aforesaid documents, injured sustained fracture to right superior public ramus, comminuted fractures to right scapula acromion and grievous injuries on chest. The Physically Handicapped Certificate reads 40% permanent disability due to post traumatic stiffness of both hips and right shoulder. The age of the injured is 30 year. The petitioner as P.W-1 though deposes that he is working as Salesman as on th date of the accident and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month, he did not place any documentary evidence to that effect. However, before the tribunal his income was fixed as per the Minimum Wages Board of Warangal District under the head of unskilled labour as Rs. 115/- per day and for 25 days, it was calculated as Rs. 2,990/-. The observation by the tribunal while arriving that figure, in my view is very much within the scope of the guidelines and awarded the compensation while taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries apart from 40% permanent disability. Having regard to the evidence on record coupled with the disability, compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable, which needs no interference. However, while applying the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sarla Verma’s case (1st cited supra) and while implementing the same instead of granting interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing O.P., granting of 6% per annum from the date of filing O.P. is just and reasonable. Accordingly, while confirming the finding of the tribunal in granting compensation to the claimant, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 6%. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed in part. Print the name of Mr.P.Sridhar in place of Ms.Jyothi Kiran. ___________________ 17.2.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121