HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2144 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, against the order in O.P. No.441 of 1998 dated 07-09-2001 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Appellant is respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is claimant and respondent No.2, who is owner of the car that involved in the accident, is respondent No.1 in the O.P. before Tribunal. Since the claimant died during pendency of this appeal, his legal representatives came on record as respondent Nos.3 to 5 vide order of this Court dated 19-12-2008 in M.A.C.M.A. M.P. No.6434 of 2007. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, who is no more now and whose legal representatives are impleaded at the appeal stage, is that he was a Head Constable of Police and on 27-02-1998 at about 1-30 PM while he was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.ATA-1714 towards D.G.P. Office at Basheerbagh Cross Roads, car bearing No.AP-11-U- 4749 belonging to respondent No.1 being driven by its driver, dashed against him causing grievous injuries to him. He suffered injuries to his left thigh, both legs, left rib and multiple injuries all over the body. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, where he was treated for a long period. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their counters denying the case of the claimant. The Tribunal, after framing appropriate issues and examining the witnesses, based on the material on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. Aggrieved of the quantum of compensation and even denying the involvement of the car in the accident, insurance company filed this appeal. 5. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 6. As per the claimant, at about 1-30 PM at Basheerbagh Cross Roads, while he was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.ATA – 1714, car bearing No.AP-11-U-4749, belonging to respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed against him by jumping the signal. One of the contentions of the insurance company is that car is not at all involved in the accident. The material on record, medical certificate and FIR, reveal that on the date of accident itself, FIR was registered with the police and the medical certificate reveals that according to the history, victim suffered a road accident. This circumstance coupled with the evidence of PW.1 is sufficient to hold that offending vehicle of respondent No.1 is involved in the accident. 7. The contention that claimant being a police Constable has concocted material to involve the offending vehicle in the accident, cannot be accepted in the absence of any material for the same and in view of the prima facie proof about involvement of the vehicle, particularly, as the FIR was registered on the same day and medical treatment details reveal that claimant suffered injuries in a road accident. 8. Thus, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the insurance company that vehicle was not involved in the accident. 9. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, as per paragraph No.7 of the judgment of the Tribunal, claimant suffered fracture of left femur and left tibia and he underwent treatment in Osmania General Hospital. He developed stiffness in the knee. He cannot do heavy work and he cannot walk long distances because of implantation of metals in the thigh. He was required to undergo further surgery for increasing the range of movements of right knee. He suffered 60% disability and compensation awarded is Rs.1,25,000/-, which is slightly on higher side. Still, it is not a case for interference of this Court at the appeal stage. However, as per the latest decisions on the rate of interest, it can be fixed at 6% per annum instead of 12% and it is accordingly reduced to 6% per annum through out i.e., from the date of petition till realization. 10. Except the above modification in rate of interest and confirming the remaining part of the impugned order, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 23, 2010. PV