THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2168 of 2003 and Cross-Objections No.2168 of 2003 Date: 29-7-2010 C.M.A.No.2168 of 2003: Between The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Mayuri Hotel, Godown Road, Nizamabad … Appellant/Respondent No.2 and 1. M/s. Sable Waghre, Nizamabad, Rep. by its Manager, Fleet owners of lorry bearing No.AP25T-289 … Respondent/Respondent No.1 2. Shaik Haneef … Respondent/Petitioner Cross-Objections No.2168 of 2003: Between Shaik Haneef … Cross-Objector/ Respondent/Claimant and 1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Near Mayuri Hotel, Godown Road, Nizamabad … Respondent/Appellant/ Respondent No.2 2. M/s. Sable Waghre, Nizamabad, Rep. by its Manager, Fleet owners Pvt. Ltd., Owner of lorry bearing No.AP25T-289 … Respondent/Respondent No.1/ Respondent No.1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2168 of 2003 and Cross-Objections No.2168 of 2003 Oral Common Judgment: Heard both sides. 2. Appeal by the insurer challenging the order and decree, dated 28-11-2002, in O.P.No.68 of 1999, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in awarding a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner-claimant in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 29-7-1998 due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP25T-289 belonging to respondent No.1. 3. Whereas, the cross-objections are filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. It is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the appellant-insurer that the quantification is high. It is the further contention that involvement of the vehicle in the accident was also in dispute. 5. But, the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the offending lorry was involved in the accident basing on the factual position. Therefore, I do not feel it expedient to go into that aspect. 6. The only other aspect that is to be seen is – whether there is any adequacy in arriving at the compensation by the Tribunal ? 7. In this regard, it is to be seen that the claimant suffered three injuries, out of which two injuries are simple in nature and one injury is grievous. Both the injuries are on the eye and other part of the body and the serious injury is a fracture of both bones of right fore-arm. 8. Having regard to the evidence on record and also the medical evidence as spoken to by the doctor P.W.2 and the wound certificate Ex.A-3, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- in all to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. I do not feel it necessary to interfere with the said award passed by the Tribunal at this point of time. 9. However, I am of the view that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation is on higher side. Therefore, the same is reduced to 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, only to the extent of reducing the rate of interest, as indicated above. 11. In view of the decision rendered in the main appeal, the cross-objections are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 29th July, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2168 of 2003 and Cross-Objections No.2168 of 2003 (Common Judgment) 29th July, 2010. (Ak)