HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1739 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: United India Insurance Company Limited is the appellant, who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in MVOP No. 585 of 1997 dated 11.10.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Nizamabad, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 12.6.1997 while the claimant was traveling in jeep bearing No. MH 26/C 126 from Nizamabad towards Nandipet and at about 5.00 PM when the jeep reached Chowrastha near Kaman, the driver of the jeep drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the scooter and as a result of which, the jeep turned turtle and the claimant fell down and received injuries and fractures and he immediately admitted into the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and after that he took treatment privately and incurred expenditure to a tune of Rs. 30,000/-. Hence, he laid a claim seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In support of his claim, the claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and examined one T. Raghupathi Rao as PW-2 and also Dr. L. Ramulu, Orthopaedic Surgeon as PW-3 through Court Commissioner and got marked Exs. A1 to A7 and C1. On behalf of Insurance Company one T. Rajender Sharma examined as RW-1 and also got marked Ex. B1 CC of Charge sheet. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident Jeep. The Tribunal taking into consideration of the evil consequences of fracture injuries that remained malunited, causing hardship, pain and painful in the movements of the right shoulder, leading to the disability at 40% in the old age of the claimant who is running 65 years as per the MLC Ex. C1 putting him into hardship and difficulties granted a sum of Rs. 75, 000/- as compensation in addition to an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and also Rs. 10,000/- towards inevitable expenditure for medicines, transport and extra nourishment, totaling Rs. 1,00,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that the court below failed to see that the first respondent has not examined any independent witness to establish that he was traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Heard the learned counsel and also perused the material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime Jeep. The Tribunal taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, observed that the claimant received fracture injuries and pain in the movements of the right shoulder leading to disability at 40%. It is also on record that PW-3 in his cross examination stated that “ it is not true to say that the petitioner Narasaiah did not involve in the accident, and did not sustain any injuries and that I am deposing false hood to help”. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the claimant has not examined any independent witness to establish that he was traveling in the offending vehicle at the time of accident is merit less. In PUSHPABAI VS. RANJIT GINNING AND PRESSING COMPNAY PVT LIMITED[1] the Supreme Court in dealing with res ipsa loquitur, held as under: “The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident ‘ speaks for itself’ or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence……. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the car was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happened if those who had the management used proper care.” In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Tribunal taking into consideration of disability due to fracture clavicle right and fracture of ribs 3 to 8 right side granted a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation besides granting Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards inevitable expenditure or medicines, transport and extra nourishment, totaling Rs. 1,00,000/-. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, in view of catena of decisions of the Apex Court interest awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. Therefore, the interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.07.2010 KA [1] AIR 1977 SC 1735