THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1419 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: Heard. 2. The insurance company, who is the 2nd respondent in O.P.No.162 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, is the appellant herein. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries said to have been received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 29.12.1997 when he was going on Suzuki motorcycle bearing No.AP 25/D 4219, the tractor bearing No.AP 25 D 9236 by its driver, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter, as a result of which, he fell down and received injuries. At the time of incident, his brother is also said to be present. The petitioner claims to have suffered multiple injuries and disability and also spent money for treatment. The 1st respondent is the owner and 2nd respondent is insurance company and therefore, they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 4. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the liability and also putting the petitioner to strict proof of the involvement of the tractor in the motor accident, the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner, and the nature of the treatment and also expenditure. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10 and Exs.C.1 and C.2. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 is examined and Exs.B.1 to B.8 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is no proof of involvement of the tractor in the incident and therefore, though the vehicle was insured, there is no liability for the appellant to pay the compensation. According to the appellant, the First Information Report is silent about the number of the tractor, the identity of the driver and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is also not acceptable on this aspect and therefore, the lower Tribunal should have dismissed the application. 6. It is not in dispute that the police after investigation have found that the tractor was involved in the incident and the driver of the vehicle also surrendered and a charge sheet was filed, which is marked as Ex.A.2. The 2nd respondent has not conducted any investigation as to the correctness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioner, the lower Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence and also on the basis of the investigation done by the police, came to the conclusion that the tractor, which was insured with the appellant alone, was involved in the accident. Since there being no evidence, the mere infirmities or deficiencies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 or the lack of particulars in the First Information Report cannot be a ground when the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence. Therefore, I do not find any reason to disagree with the finding of the lower Tribunal that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant and the petitioner has received injuries as claimed. The Tribunal also taken into consideration the evidence of the doctor and also the particulars of the treatment and expenditure and granted the compensation of Rs.1,43,000/- particularly because the petitioner is said to have suffered from disability. Therefore, the quantum of compensation also cannot be said to be excessive. However, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the granting of interest at 9% per annum is excessive. Since the Courts are adopting the uniform rate of interest at 7.5% the award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent of the interest and the claimant will be entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum instead of 9% per annum. With the above modification, the award of the lower Tribunal is confirmed, and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. Each party shall bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date: 14.07.2011 INL