kbp 1 fa1089-94.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1089 OF 1994 Ganpat Chimaji Thorat ..Appellant Vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation ..Respondent ......... Mr.A.S.Rao, for appellant. Mr.C.M.Lokesh, for respondent. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 5 th December, 2009. JUDGMENT : 1] The appellant who is the claimant in a claim petition filed under Section 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, sustained injury while he was travelling by a bus owned by the respondent Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. The Tribunal found that the accident was caused due to the negligent driving on the part of driver of the bus. The claim made by the appellant was of Rs. 40,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.11,000/- has been granted by way of compensation under the impugned judgment and award with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the medical expenses in the sum of Rs.2,000/- have been granted and considering the long kbp 2 fa1089-94.sxw hospitalisation of the appellant, the amount granted is on the lower side. He submitted that on account of fracture and disability suffered by the appellant, no amount has been granted. It is submitted that the claim of Rs.40,000/- was just and proper. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant is not entitled to compensation on account of loss of salary. It is submitted that a sum of Rs.3,000/- on account of pain and suffering is already granted. Hence, no interference is called for with the impugned award. 3] I have given careful consideration to the submissions and I have perused the record. There is no dispute about the accident and injury sustained in the accident as no cross-appeal or cross-objection has been filed by the respondent. The medical certificate at exhibit 27 shows that the appellant suffered from fracture of lumber-3 vertebra and a permanent disability of 15% has been caused to him. The discharge card of the Sasoon Hospital, Pune has been produced on record to show that the appellant was hospitalised in the said hospital. The certificate exhibit 29 of the Katariya Hospital discloses that he was admitted in the said hospital on 20 th August, 1984 and was discharged on 16 th September, 1984. In absence of the documentary evidence on record to show the actual expenses for medical treatment, a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been has been rightly granted. However, I find that no compensation has been granted on account of fracture and permanent disability. An amount of Rs.15,000/- deserves to be granted on the said count. The amount granted under the head of pain and kbp 3 fa1089-94.sxw sufferings is reasonable. 4] Under the impugned judgment, interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been granted. The claim petition of 1985 has been decided in the year 1993. At that time, the normal practice was to grant interest at the rate of 12% per annum. However, thereafter the rates of interest have considerably reduced. Though, the rate of interest at the rate of 6% per annum fixed in the year 1993 was certainly on the lower side, as on today, the rate of interest will have to be fixed at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the amount payable under the impugned award as well as on the additional compensation amount. 5] Hence, I pass the following order: (a) In addition to the compensation amount of Rs.11,000/- awarded under the impugned judgment and award, the respondent shall pay additional compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the appellant with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount with the Tribunal. (b) On the sum of Rs.11,000/- granted under the impugned award, the interest payable will be at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the deposit of the amount with the Tribunal. (c) Time of four months is granted to the respondent to deposit the additional amount of compensation. (d) Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. The appellant will be entitled to the proportionate costs of the appeal from the respondent. ( A.S.OKA, J. )