THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2689 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity the ‘the Act’) seeking to enhance the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P.No.867 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal) by the order, dated 27.03.2001, whereunder a sum of Rs.73,488.35 paise was awarded as compensation for the injuries suffered by her in the accident. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.07.1999, at about 8 pm when the claimant was going in an auto bearing No.AP 13U 7613 from the hospital to her residence, and when it reached Government High School, Musheerabad, one Maruti van bearing No.AP 9AB 3629, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed came and dashed the auto, as a result of which, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Hence, the said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical treatment, transport charges, extra- nourishment, etc. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer-second respondent. P.W-1-the injured herself deposed that she was earning Rs.2,500/- by working in a private hospital. P.W-2-doctor who examined her deposed that the claimant sustained fracture to both bones of her right leg and that he also noticed stiffness of right leg knee joint with small scar marks over right leg and right knee joint. He opined that due to the said injuries, the injured can do her normal duties with some difficulty, but she cannot lift weights and could not squat on the ground on account of stiffness of leg. He further assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 30%. Ex.A-4-discharge card also proves the fact of the claimant sustaining fracture to both bones of her right leg at middle 1/3rd, besides punctured wound which was found healing. As regards the income of the claimant, Ex.A-5-salary certificate was filed but, none was examined to depose about the same. Therefore, even assuming that the claimant worked as a labourer, she would have earned Rs.2,000/- per month. Having regard to the nature of the injuries and the evidence of the doctor to the effect that the claimant suffered 30% disability, if the compensation is assessed, i.e., 30% of Rs.2,000/- comes to Rs.600/- per month, amounting to Rs.7,200/- per annum and by applying the appropriate multiplier of ‘17’, the compensation towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.1,22,400/-. In addition to the said sum, the claimant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,32,400/-, which is rounded off to Rs.1,35,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company vehemently contends that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is slightly on higher side. Therefore, the same is reduced from 9% to 7 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. The enhanced compensation of Rs.61,512/- shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the said O.P. till the date of realization. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 23rd September 2010 dr