THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1239 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. Challenging the quantum of compensation, awarded by the District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), in O.P.No.774 of 1999, by order and decree, dated 09.04.2002, granting a sum of Rs.97,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner therein, in a road accident that occurred on 27.08.1996, the New India Assurance Company Limited, filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The method and manner in which the accident occurred and the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the accident are not in serious dispute, hence, I do not find any necessity to go into all those facts. In the present case, the original claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. Subsequently, he died in usual course. Therefore, his wife, who is his legal representative, has been brought on record. The only question that falls for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the quantification of compensation by the Tribunal is adequate or not? The original claimant-injured got himself examined as P.W-1. The doctor who treated the injured was examined as P.W-2. Ex.A-2-injury certificate, Ex.A-3-Discharge summary, Exs.A-4 to A- 7-prescriptions, Ex.A-8-medical bills and Ex.A-9- disability certificate were marked on behalf of the injured-claimant. As per Ex.A-2-injury certificate, the original claimant sustained injuries on the head, on right side of the ear, on the left hand and grievous injuries on the left side of the leg above knee, fracture of right and left knees and other bleeding injuries all over the body. It is further borne out from the record that the original claimant because of the head injury was experiencing pains and head ache and reeling sensation besides experiencing pain due to fracture of the knee and he is unable to stand, sit and squat for a considerable time. Due to the said injury, he was away from the profession as an Advocate for about two months and even during the pendency of the O.P. before the Tribunal he was taking treatment. Prima facie, though the injuries sustained by him appear to be simple nature, it is to be noticed that he sustained an injury on the head. In view of the same, the Tribunal had taken into account all the injuries and the after affects of the said injuries, despite the injuries being minor in nature, and also keeping in view the nature of his profession i.e., as an Advocate, awarded a compensation of Rs.97,000/-. I do not find any irrationality in the said quantification of compensation by the Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently contends that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is slightly on higher side. Therefore, the same is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. In all other respects and aspects, the impugned order and decree shall remain unaltered. 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 07th October 2010 dr