THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3543 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant against the order dated 14.08.2002 in O.P. No. 1156 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, whereby and whereunder the claim petition of the appellant was partly allowed granting compensation of Rs.99,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- with costs and interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. The appellant-injured-claimant filed the O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.7.2000. The rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the accident vehicle was established and basing on the same, the lower Tribunal fastened the liability on respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally in view of Ex.B.1-insurance policy being in force by the time of the accident by awarding Rs.99,000/- (i.e. Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.24,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings for about one year), with costs and interest at 9% per annum. 3. It is contended that the trial court ought to have fixed the monthly earnings of the appellant-claimant-injured at Rs.3,000/-instead of Rs.2,000/- since he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month and Rs.20/- batta per day by working as a Cleaner on the accident vehicle. It is further contended that as per Ex.A.9-x-ray report, the appellant-injured- claimant suffered fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs on left side. Further the evidence of PW.2-Assistant Medical Officer also discloses that the appellant-claimant-injured suffered deformity of left forearm and fracture of 7th and 8th ribs as well as fracture of left wrist. Therefore, it is contended that the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded towards the said fracture injuries is not at all reasonable and the same may be reasonably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the second respondent- insurance company that the monthly earnings of the appellant-claimant-injured fixed by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable and it does not warrant any interference from this court. So far as the medical expenses granted towards fracture injuries is concerned, it is submitted that the lower Tribunal in its discretion having regard to the material on record, awarded the amount and the same is just and reasonable and it does not warrant interference from this court. 5. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the fact that the appellant-claimant-injured was working as a Cleaner on the accident vehicle and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month besides Rs.20/- batta per day, this court is of the view that the lower Tribunal should have taken his monthly earnings at Rs.3,000/-, since the same was not rebutted by bringing on record any material. Therefore, this court is of the view that it is just and proper that his income is to be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. Thus for one year, his loss of income has to be raised from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.36,000/-. Since the appellant himself is the injured, this court is of the view that no amount is required to be deducted from his monthly earnings. So far as the fracture injuries are concerned, as per Ex.A9 and as per evidence of PW2, they are grievous in nature and they are caused to the left side ribs and left forearm as well as the left wrist. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider enhancement from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- on that count, while maintaining the amount of compensation of Rs.24,000/- awarded towards medical expenses. Thus, the appellant-injured- claimant is held to be entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/-. However, so far as the interest being awarded at 9% per annum is concerned, this court is of the view that the same has to be reduced and the same is hereby reduced to 6% per annum as per the decision reported in Sarala Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation of India[1]. 6. With this modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. _________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 22-07-2010 Stp [1] 2009 (6) SCC 121.