ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO. 19 OF APPEAL NO. 19 OF APPEAL NO. 19 OF 1992 1992 1992 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Maharashtra Vahatuk Bhavan, Dr.A.N.Road, Bombay-400 008. ...Appellant. (Orig.Opponent No.2) Vs. 1.Shri Shripat Ramchandra Yeola, R./o.Nagewadi, Tq.Wai, Dist.Satara. 2.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Gramodhar Building, Satara. ...Respondents. (Orig.Applicant & Opponent No.3.) Mr.C.M.Lokesh i/by Mr.G.S.Hegde for the Appellant. Mr.Rohan Darndale i/by Mr.Rajesh Datar for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd June, 2008 : 2nd June, 2008 : 2nd June, 2008. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- JUDGMENT:- . This appeal is filed by the Appellant, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "MSRTC") against the Judgment and order dated 20th April, 1991 whereby original claimant-Respondent No.1’s claim for compensation has been partly allowed and directed to the Appellant to pay Rs.25,410/- (Rupees twenty five thousand four hundred ten only) with interest @ 12% p.a. on the whole amount. The challenge is made by the MSRTC and not by the driver. ( 2 ) 2. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Raigad, (for short, "MACT,Raigad") after considering the material on record as well as the evidence laid by the parties held that because of contributory negligence i.e. 75% of driver of the S.T.Bus No.8289 and 25% by the claimant, accident took place on 15/06/1986 on Bombay-Goa road, that damaged the truck of original claimant and therefore, claimant alongwith his application for damages submitted his case and lead evidence which according to me rightly appreciated by the MACT, Raigad. 3. The reasoning so given is within the framework of law and the record. Having once proved, the accident took place because of contributory negligence, the next question is of compensation/damages. The original claimant lead evidence to support his claim including the evidence of the surveyor and supporting receipts towards the expenses incurred. The amount so calculated from the receipts, therefore by the MACT, Raigad to the extent of Rs.33875/- in absence of the contra material needs to be respected. The loss of business on account of damage to the vehicle because of accident thus cannot be overlooked by considering ( 3 ) the facet of damage. However, as assessed by the Tribunal based on the material available on record, granted amount of Rs.25,410/- (Twenty five thousand four hundred ten only) as the appellant is responsible for the accident to the extent of 75% need no interference. 4. The submission with regard to the rate of interest of 12% on the whole amount, in view of the recent Supreme Court Judgment in Oriental Insurance Company Oriental Insurance Company Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. Vs. Raj Kumari & Ors., 2008 ACJ 295 Vs. Raj Kumari & Ors., 2008 ACJ 295 Vs. Raj Kumari & Ors., 2008 ACJ 295, and the Judgments of this Court need to be restricted 9% instead of 12%. 5. The basic claim so awarded needs no interference. In view of this, the appeal is partly allowed only to the above extent. 6. No costs. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)