THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A.No. 1000 of 2007. JUDGEMENT: This appeal is by the APSRTC against the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court in MVOP.No. 324 of 2005. The respondent herein suffered an accident while he was riding his motor cycle bearing No. AP 11 K 9997. The said vehicle was hit by the offending bus belonging to the appellant resulting in multiple injuries and fractures to the claimant. He has taken treatment in Osmania General Hospital and in Yeshoda Super Speciality Hospital. During the treatment, his left leg was amputated below knee. It is claimed that he was working as a Bore Mechanic and earning a sum of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. Claiming that he has suffered permanent disability, compensation of Rs. 6,50,000/- was claimed in the O.P. The Appellant Corporation denied the rash and negligent driving of the bus and it is pleaded that when the claimant tried to over-take an Auto, he lost balance and fell on the road while the bus was proceeding. The Tribunal below recorded the evidence of claimant himself as Pw.1 and two doctors who treated the claimant as Pws 2 and 3. The Appellant Corporation examined the driver of the bus as RW.1. The claimant got marked Exs:A.1 to A.10. Exs:A.1 and A.2 are the FIR and charge sheet, Exs: A.3 to A.8 andA.10 are the medical record and Ex:A.9 is the driving license of the claimant. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal below answered issue No.1 in favour of the claimant holding that the appellant bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner. Under issue No.2 regarding quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below found that the claimant was at least earning a sum of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. and taking into consideration the age of the deceased, calculated the compensation payable to him at Rs. 3,98,600/- which includes reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 1,90,000/- already incurred by him as evidenced by Ex: A.4. The Tribunal below also awarded interest at 7% p.a. on the said aggregate compensation. Aggrieved by the said Award, the present appeal is filed. Heard both sides. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the amount of compensation awarded towards 40% disability is exorbitant as there is no evidence to establish that the appellant was earning Rs. 2,000/- p.m. It is also contended that the amount granted towards hospital expenditure is also excessive though the doctors who treated the claimant are examined as Pws 3 and 4. Both the said contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant do not appear to be sound and sustainable inasmuch as the payment of hospital expenditure of Rs. 1,90,000/- is established by Ex:A.4 where the hospital certifies to have received the said amount of Rs. 1,90,000/- on the date of discharge from the claimant. Further, the medical evidence clearly establishes that the claimant suffered amputation of left leg below knee. There is therefore no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal below. Similarly, though the claimant had claimed his earnings at Rs. 4,500/- p.m. in the absence of any evidence, the Tribunal below considered his earnings at minimum of Rs. 2,000/- p.m. as he is a qualified mechanic. Since he was aged 23 years and the permanent disability of 45% being not in dispute, the Tribunal below has correctly assessed the compensation payable to the claimant and same does not warrant interference. However, as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. is on higher side. Since, in several decisions, the Supreme Court has been consistently awarding interest at 6% p.a., the interest is scaled down to 6% p.a. As the claimant had already withdrawn reimbursement of medical expenditure as granted under the Award by virtue of interim orders of this Court, the balance of compensation under award shall be paid with interest at 6% p.a. excluding the amount already withdrawn by the claimant. Subject to the above modification in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J 21.07.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A.No. 1000 of 2007. JUDGEMENT: DT. 21.07.2010.