THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1951 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 10.6.2002, in O.P.No.37 of 2000, passed by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of Rs.10,50,000/-, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 06.12.1998, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Setwin bus, bearing No.ADT 8913, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurer-United India Insurance Company Limited. 3. This is a case of injuries in a road accident. The particulars regarding the method and manner in which the accident had occurred is not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- on all counts. Hence, the present appeal by the insurer. 4. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantification of compensation made by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 5. It is borne out from the record that the claimant suffered compound fracture of right tibial condyle, popliteal artery injury, fracture of right ankle and mandible of neck on left side. He took treatment for a considerable period and also underwent surgery for several times by incurring huge expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/-. An attempt was also made to show that Ex.A-5 medico legal record, as well as Exs.A-6 and A-7 discharge summaries to corroborate the evidence of the claimant about the nature of injuries sustained by him and the treatment, including the operations undergone by him. But, the claimant could not substantiate his claim as regards the expenditure incurred by him towards treatment. P.Ws.2, who treated the petitioner, assessed the temporary disability of the claimant at 10%, which may increase in future. P.W.3 another doctor, who treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant is not having any disfigurement. Therefore, having regard to the totality of the circumstances, the evidence on record and also the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal had rightly arrived at a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- towards compensation on all counts. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the light of the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal in arriving at the amount of compensation, I do not feel it expedient to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. There are no merits in the civil miscellaneous appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. However, it is to be seen that the Tribunal had awarded interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In my considered view, the said rate of interest is slightly on higher side. Therefore, exercising the power under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, I deem it appropriate to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. In all other aspects, the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 22.07.2010 Msr. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1951 of 2003 22.07.2010 (Msr)