THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.NO.3123 OF 2000 DT.17.11.2009 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., rep. By its Managing Director, RTC Cross Roads, Mushirabad, Hyderabad ……………….Appellant Vs Smt.C.Vanaja, Puthalapattu and two others ………………….Respondents. JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, which was arrayed as respondent No.1 in O.P.No.552 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirupathi. The claim petition with respect to the injury sustained by the claimant was instituted against the appellant-APSRTC, the driver of a jeep bearing No.AP 03 A.6155 arrayed as R-2 in the O.P., and National Insurance Corporation arrayed as respondent No.3 in the O.P., who had insured the said jeep. The accident in question had occurred on 02.01.1999, when the bus belonging to the appellant dashed against the jeep referred to above, in which the claimant was travelling. The accident is said to have been caused by the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant, which resulted in grievous fracture injury to the claimant. Thereupon, he was admitted at SVRR Hospital, Tirupathi. The police registered the case in Cr.No.1 of 1999 with the Station House Officer, Pakala Police Station. The claimant is said to be working as a Painter and was earning Rs.4,500/- per month and on account of the accident, right hip joint bone and lower jaw received major fracture, apart from loss of two upper teeth, four lower teeth shaken and injuries on the face and other injuries. It was also claimed that on account of the said injuries, it is a permanent disability about 25% and he is unable to carry on with his avocation and thereby a claim petition in O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was made in the O.P. The Tribunal below examined the matter on the basis of the evidence on record and on finding that the appellant’s driver was guilty of rash and negligent driving, assessed the compensation payable for the injuries sustained by the claimant at Rs.1,22,266/-, with 12% interest. The said award is in challenge in this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal below has wrongly answered Issue No.1 and instead of noticing that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the jeep driver, the appellant alone is held liable and the evidence of RW-1 and RW-2 has been ignored by the Tribunal while answering Issue No.1. The learned counsel therefore contends that even though the claimant is entitled to any compensation for the injuries, the same cannot be placed as a liability only of the appellant and that it would have been apportioned with the Insurance Company as well. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. In the light of the evidence on record, Exs.A-1 and A-3 (which are wrongly referred to as Exs.P-1 and P-3, etc., in the judgment of the Tribunal below) show that Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of FIR and Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Both the said documents categorically show that it is the negligence of the driver of the appellant. He was responsible for the accident. Further, the evidence on behalf of the claimants, namely, PWs.1 and 2 in the respective O.P., who were injured in the said accident, consistently stated that it is the bus, which dashed against the jeep leading to the accident, the Tribunal rightly found that there is no evidence to contend that there is any contributory negligence by the driver of the jeep. No independent proceedings are taken by the appellant with respect to the said claim of contributory negligence and it is only that the present proceedings are being defended by the appellant on the said ground. I am, therefore, not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and I am of the view that the findings reached by the Tribunal below are clearly based on evidence and warrants no interference. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is only with respect to the rate of interest, which is awarded by the Tribunal at 12.5%. In view of the consistent view of the Honourable Supreme Court and the recent decisions, the said rate of interest being on a higher side, it is just and proper to interfere with the award to that extent. The amount awarded by the Tribunal therefore shall stand modified and the amount awarded shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition, till realisation. The appeal is allowed to that extent. No order as to costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPARKAR J., Dt.17.11.2009 tjs