HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N .RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 1812 of 2003 And Cross-Objections (Sr). No.9254 of 2003 in C.M.A. No.1812 of 2003 DATED: 02.12.2010 C.M.A. No.1812 of 2003: Between : The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. … APPELLANT A N D 1. D. Maniamma 2. Syed Ghouse (dismissed for default) …RESPONDENTS Cross-Objections (sr) No.9254 of 2003: Between: D.Maniamma . . Cross- objector / R1 in CMA And 1. The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. Syed Ghouse .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 13.12.2002 made in O.P. No. 2664 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereby an amount of Rs.31,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded to the petitioner-claimant against her claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. The facts of the case in brief are that on 25.11.2001, at about 04.30 P.M., when the petitioner-claimant-D.Maniamma and the members of her family were travelling by Maruti Car bearing No. AP10 C 2424 from Hyderabad to Nizampet, and when they reached near Padmavathi Plaza of Kukatpally, the lorry bearing No. ABT 1876 belonging the 1st respondent driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed against the car dragging it to some distance, causing grievous injuries to the claimant and other inmates of the Car. It is stated that the passers-by admitted the claimant and the injured in hospital. The petitioner- claimant took treatment by spending huge amount. Hence, she filed O.P. No. 2664 of 2001 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal inter alia denying the averments made in the petition and further stated that the injuries if any sustained by the claimant have been healed completely, and the claimant is not suffering from any permanent disability and the claim made is highly exorbitant. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident in question which resulted in injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s Motor Vehicle? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? iii) To what relief? To substantiate the claim of the claimant, she was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A7. Nobody was examined except the marking of Ex.B1 on behalf of the 1st respondent-Insurance Company. Taking into consideration the evidence and other material on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.31,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred this Appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The evidence of PW1-claimant would go to show that on the date of the accident, when herself and the members of her family were travelling by a Maruti Car to go to Nizampet, at Padmavathi Plaza of Kukatpalli, the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent came at high speed and dashed against the Car from behind, as a result, all the inmates of the Car sustained injuries. Further, the accident took in broad daylight and the driver of the lorry had every occasion to avoid accident as it was proceeding from behind the Maruthi Car. Her version is fully fortified by Ex.A1 - report given by one of the injured, who sustained injures while travelling by the Car. It is to be noticed that the respondents did not get the driver of the lorry examined to prove the alleged contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Car. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the driver of the Maruthi Car contributed negligence for causing the accident. Hence, the evidence of PW1 is trustworthy, reliable and remained unchallenged. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal is rightly justified in arriving at the conclusion that the driver of the lorry caused the accident by driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner, and also in awarding just and reasonable compensation. Hence, the order impugned in this appeal does not warrant interference from this Court. CROSS-OBJECTIONS: The 1st respondent – claimant – D.Maniamma, has filed cross- objections on the ground that the Tribunal failed to grant any amount towards transportation charges, extra nourishment, attendant charges during the time of treatment, pain and suffering and towards damages to cloth and loss of wrist watch. From a careful perusal of evidence of PW1 and the other material placed on record, it appears that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which came from behind and hit the Maruti Car, as a result the claimant sustained injuries. Her evidence is not at all corroborated by the respondent- Insurance company. However, having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the course of her treatment she underwent as in-patient in Universal hospital from 25.11.2001 to 02.12.2001 as is evident from Ex.A3 – discharge summary issued by Universal Hospital and Diagnostic Centre and Ex.A4 – original bills, the amount of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards injuries does not seem to be just and reasonable. Further, it is to be noticed from the impugned order that the Tribunal did not grant any compensation towards any head as mentioned in her cross- objections. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to enhance the amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-, towards injuries, and grant Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.4,000/- towards attendant charges during the course of treatment and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.2,000/- towards damages to cloth and wrist watch. Hence, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.68,000/- (Rs.31,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) + Rs.37,000/-). However, in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court and other decisions, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at 9% p.a. be and is hereby reduced to 7.5% on Rs.37,000/-. Hence, C.M.A. No. 1812 of 2003 filed by the Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of C.M.A. No.1812 of 2003 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Cross-Objections (SR) No.9254 of 2003 filed by the claimant are allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 02-12-2010 bcj