THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3658 of 2008 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the order, dated 27.04.2006, passed in O.P.No.165 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 02.03.2003, the claimant and others boarded an auto bearing No.AP-22-4906 at Mahabubnagar to go to Kotakadira and when they reached in front of P.G.College, one TVS victor motorcycle bearing No.AP 22F 3162 came in opposite direction, driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the auto, due to which, the auto turned turtle and the claimant sustained injuries. The Police, Mahabubnagar Rural registered a case in Cr.No.48 of 2003 for the offences under sections 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the motorcycle. In the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture to his right leg, bleeding injuries on the eye, feet and elbow and other multiple injuries. He spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- for his treatment. Hence, he filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer of the motorcycle. 3. Respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurer filed counter-affidavit denying the manner of the accident and the alleged injuries, treatment and the amount spent by the claimant. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle bearing No.AP 22F 3162? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, and if so to what amount? 3. To what relief? 5. During trial, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. 6. The Tribunal having considered the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of TVS victor motorcycle and awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-towards one grievous injury and three simple injuries, Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards inevitable expenditure for medicines, transport and extra nourishment and in all, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers at the time of accident and that since R.W.1, the driver of the motorcycle, has clearly stated that he did not drive the motorcycle of the second respondent on the date of accident, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted higher compensation for the simple injuries sustained by the claimant. 8. From a perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the claimant-injured, who was examined himself as P.W.1, has clearly stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle, which came in opposite direction at high speed and dashed the auto, due to which, the auto turned turtle towards right side resulting injuries to him and others. R.W.1, who is the driver of the motorcycle at the time of accident, was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 338 IPC and after trial, he was acquitted of the said charge. Giving much credence to the evidence of the injured eye witness-P.W.1 and disbelieving the version of R.W.1, which is nothing but a self serving statement, the Tribunal has answered the first issue in favour of the claimant holding that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of motorcycle and therefore, the same need not be interfered with by this Court. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation of an amount of Rs.50,000/- for one grievous and three simple injuries, medicines, transport, extra-nourishment and pain and suffering, which cannot also be interfered with by this Court. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal can be reduced from 7.5% to 7% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The award of the Tribunal in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. The compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the petition till realization. 9. With the modification as above to the award of the Tribunal, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:01.07.2010 sj