THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3000 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Eluru, West Godavari District, in O.P.No.140/1998. Second respondent-A.P.S.R.T.C. is the appellant. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 28.05.1997 the petitioner started from his village Jettipalem on scooter bearing No.AP 37 J2879 along with his junior aunt and at about 6.45 p.m., when he reached near Ayyappa Swamy temple, Palakol, the bus bearing No.AP.9/23 8268 dashed the scooter, on account of which the petitioner fell down and received multiple injuries. He was admitted in Government Hospital, Palakol and on 29.05.1997 he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kakinada, from where he was discharged on 31.05.1997 and later he was admitted in Swathantra Hospital, Rajahmundry and Sowbhagya Nursing Home, Narsapur for better treatment. He spent nearly Rs.2.00 lakhs for treatment. He claimed total compensation of Rs.4.00 lakhs. Respondents filed counter denying the petition averments. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of R.T.C.bus bearing No.AP-9-23- 8268 driven by the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and no documents were marked. Considering the material on record, the court below awarded compensation of Rs.2,61,000/-. Questioning the said quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 4. Now, the only question that arises for consideration is, whether the quantum of compensation awarded is high? 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner – claimant suffered amputation of four toes of left leg on account of that there must have been substantial inconvenience for the petitioner in his movements and in attending his regular work from time to time. The petitioner claims that he has taken treatment in several hospitals, which is obviously false, as the amputation was done initially and there was no necessity for him to go around to several hospitals as it is not his case that there were any complications after amputation of toes. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- towards loss of income by applying multiplier ‘16’ as awarded by the court below is not inadequate. After the accident, the petitioner was out of work for some time and his capacity to work also must have come down, but granting of an amount of Rs.1,92,000/- towards loss of income is slightly on higher side. Thus, the total compensation of Rs.2,61,000/- granted by the court below is somewhat on higher side. Still, considering the fact that it is a case of amputation of four toes and further treatment like skin grafting etc., for which the petitioner must have spent substantial money and as he must have suffered pain and he would have to live with the inconvenience of loosing four toes, the compensation awarded need not be reduced, though it is on higher side, as referred above. However, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. 6. With the above modification, i.e. of reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 6%, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 30th November 2010, Rns