HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1094 of 2003 JUDGMENT: United Insurance Company is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in MVOP NO. 1771 of 2000 dated 12.8.2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, C.C.C. Hyderabad, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against which, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,00,000/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 05.07.2000 at about 6.00 PM when claimant himself and some others were traveling in an auto as passengers from Yadagirigutta towards Tanguturu near Madhava Reddy’s Guava Garden the driver of the auto drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner and consequently the auto over turned. As a result of which, the claimant sustained fracture of 7th , 8th and 9th ribs apart from fracture of spinal card at D12 and L1 and took treatment in CDR Hospital from 10.7.2000 to 28.7.2000 as in-patient. It is stated that the deceased was working as a labourer and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month, therefore, he laid a claim for Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent-owner of the auto bearing No. AP11 V 3856 remained ex parte and the second respondent –United Insurance Company flied counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that in order to get compensation, the negligence was thrown on the driver of the Auto and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the claimant, PWs 1 was examined and Exs. A-1 to A-8 were marked. On behalf of respondents no witness was examined but Ex. B1 policy was marked. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in an auto accident on 5.7.2000 due to rash an negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 11 V 3856? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so to what amount and from whom? 3. to what relief ? 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident auto, the respondents 1 and 2 being owner and insurer respectively of the auto, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. In order to determine the injuries sustained by the claimant, Ex. A-3 discharge summary shows that the claimant sustained Multiple abrasion on the left forearm, on the back, pain in the right arm pit region, tenderness over the right 6th, 7th and 8th ribs and the injuries are grievous in nature and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the injuries and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 19,358/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,555/- towards purchase of medicines, Rs. 8,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income totaling Rs. 1,01,913/-. As the claimant claimed only Rs. 1,00,000/- the Tribunal restricted the amount awarded to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7 . The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal erroneously granted Rs, 50,000/- towards injuries in the absence of any evidence from a qualified medical practitioner. He also submits that the Tribunal ought not to have granted total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the claimant when the claimant failed to establish his injuries through cogent evidence. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal granting a total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- is just and proper? 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident auto and the first respondent- owner of the auto and the appellant –Insurance Company being insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. It is also no doubt true that the deceased was working as Labourer and used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month and he is the sole bread winner of the family. As seen from Ex. A-3 discharge summary of CDR Hospital, it shows that the claimant sustained multiple abrasions on the left forearm, on the back and he got pain in the right arm pit region and tenderness over the right 6th, 7th and 8th ribs. Therefore, the Tribunal taking into consideration grievous injuries sustained by the claimant granted Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income for three months, Rs. 50,000/- towards injuries suffered, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 19,358/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,555/- towards the purchase of medicines, and Rs, 8,000/- towards extra nourishment totaling Rs. 1,01,913/-. As the claim itself was Rs. 1,00,000/-, the Tribunal restricted the claim to Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence, I see no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect and the Tribunal is justified in granting the same. 10. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum, is on high side and requested to reduce the same. 11. Taking into consideration catena of Supreme Court Judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part reducing the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 29.07.2010 KA