THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2519 OF 2003 AND CIVIL REVISIO PETITION No.92 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the cases arise out of the claim for compensation by the petitioners in a motor accident on 28.02.1996. The revision petitioner in O.P.No.116 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Before District Judge), Anantapur, whereas the appellant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2519 of 2003 is the petitioner in O.P.No.114 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Before District Judge), Anantapur. 2. In O.P.No.114 of 1997 as against the claim of the petitioner for a sum of Rs.50,000/- the Court has granted a sum of Rs.18,000/-. The petitioner was examined as PW.2 and he relied on the wound certificate Ex.A.4 and taking into consideration the wound certificate, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was granted towards grievous injury and a sum of Rs.3,000/- for simple injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that no amount was granted separately towards the medical expenses or towards pain and suffering. The amount of compensation of Rs.18,000/- granted towards injuries is evidently for pain and suffering and not for any other purpose. The petitioner has also not examined the doctor to prove that there was any disability or grievousness of the injuries and no medical bills were also filed. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, the lower Court has fixed the compensation of Rs.18,000/- and I do not think it can be said to be less or not in accordance with the principles of law. It is to be noted that there cannot be any separate compensation for simple injuries or grievous injuries, which were received in a single accident. Therefore, the medical expenses if any incurred can be treated could have been compensated by a sufficient award passed by the lower Court. 3. So far as the petitioner in C.R.P.No.92 of 2005 is concerned, the petitioner was examined as PW.3. His evidence goes to show that he received one grievous injury i.e., fracture and also two simple injuries. He relied upon Ex.A.5 would certificate. The lower Court after considering the above facts granted a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injury and a sum of Rs.2,000/- for simple injuries. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner has advanced the same argument, as above, but for the same reasons I do not find that the compensation granted by the lower Court is less. Therefore, I hold that the compensation fixed by the lower Court is legal. 4. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that no interest was granted from the date of the petition and it was only granted from the date of the award. Evidently, the petitions were filed in 1997 and the award was passed in 2002 and it will be equitable to grant interest from the date of the petition instead of from the date of the award. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, the petitioners are held entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation instead of 9% per annum from the date of the award. 5. With the above modification, the Appeal and Civil Revision Petition are allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 10-06-2011. INL