HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 3899 of 2002 DATED: 09.09.2010 Between: Bal Raj .. Appellant And 1. Mohd. Raza Siddiqui 2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. M/s. Classic Motor Driving School .. Respondents JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the orders dated 22.08.2002 passed in O.P.No.735 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, awarding the appellant- claimant a total compensation of Rs.76,480/- with 9% interest p.a. as against his claim of Rs.3,75,000/-, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The facts of the case in brief are that on 04.03.2000 at about 8:00 A.M, while the appellant/claimant was proceeding on a Scooter bearing No. AP 23 B 763 along with a young boy by name Stephen from Sangareddy to Hyderabad and when they reached near Hanuman Temple of Gangavaram village, an Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 10 C 846, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed and hit their scooter, due to which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. A case in Crime No.63 of 2000 on the file of Chandanagar Police Station was registered under Section 337 IPC against the car driver. Hence, the appellant filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-. The 2nd respondent - Insurance-company denied rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Ambassador Car and the health condition, avocation and earning capacity of the claimant as well as the nature of injury suffered by him including disability. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s car? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? The Tribunal, after considering the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 – F.I.R., Ex.A2 - Charge sheet, Ex.A3 - Medico legal record and Ex.A4 - Accident register, came to a conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Ambassador Car, and answered Issue No.1 positively. The Doctor, who examined and treated the appellant/claimant for his injuries, was examined as PW2. He testified that the appellant/claimant was under his treatment for about a month and he suffered the following injuries: 1) fracture dislocation of right hip; 2) fracture of clavicle on right side; 3) sciatic nerve palsy. He also testified that after discharge the appellant/claimant took follow-up treatment from him and he was advised for replacement of total hip for Acetabulum fracture; and opined that the appellant would not be in a position to walk long distances, sit and squat as a normal person could do, and assessed the total disability at 40% and conceded that after operation it could come down to 30%. Considering the testimony of PW2, the Tribunal assessed the disability at 25% and considering that the disability would not result in his loosing the job, awarded him Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability and another Rs.25,000/- towards 25% disability. Further, the Tribunal considering that the appellant/claimant availed 27 days of Earned Leave and 122 days of Medical Leave, awarded an amount of Rs.21,480/- towards loss of Earned and Medical Leave. However, the Tribunal negatived his claim for compensation amount towards medicines since he was already reimbursed an amount of Rs.25,000/- under medical reimbursement. It had also negatived the claim of the appellant for Rs.80,000/- towards operation expenses since he was entitled to medical reimbursement from the Civil Supplies Department, where he was working. However, an amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, making the total compensation of Rs.76,480/- and fastening the liability to the respondents to pay the compensation amount in view of Ex.B1 - Insurance policy being in force at the time of the accident, together with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the Tribunal was not justified in reducing the disability to 25% in the face of the testimony of PW2 - the Doctor, who examined and treated the appellant/claimant and gave Ex.A7 - disability certificate, according to which, the appellant/claimant had suffered 40% permanent disability. PW2 also testified in clear terms that the appellant/claimant had suffered 40% permanent disability, but opined that after the operation, the same may go down to 30%. Even then, it is contended that the Tribunal reduced it to 25% and awarded Rs.25,000/- therefor, without any basis. Therefore, it is contended that 40% permanent disability as mentioned in Ex.P7 may be considered and the compensation amount, therefore, may appropriately be enhanced. The learned counsel further contends that the Tribunal had lost sight of the attendant and transportation charges since the appellant/claimant was treated in the hospital as an in-patient for about a month. Therefore, a reasonable amount may be awarded under those heads. The learned counsel further contends that awarding Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering is quite low since the appellant/claimant suffered fracture injury for which he took treatment as an in-patient for about a month in the hospital. Therefore, reasonable amount may be awarded under this head. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-United India Insurance Company Limited contends that with regard to the second ground of appeal i.e. the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.3,75,000/- as compensation instead of awarding Rs.50,000/-, the counsel took exception to the same and stated that it is a typographical mistake as Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.76,480/-. So far as ground No.4 is concerned, he contends that the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards the disability and the same is just and reasonable and it does not warrant any interference from this Court. So far as ground No.5 is concerned, the learned counsel contends that since the appellant was in-patient for about a month, the Tribunal granted Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering and the same is just and reasonable, since his monthly salary was Rs.4,296-75. The learned counsel, conceding that no amount is granted towards extra- nourishment, contends that so far as the treatment and medicines are concerned, the appellant, being a public servant, is entitled to claim reimbursement from his Department, as such, the same need not be considered by this Court. So far as the claim under the head of extra- nourishment is concerned, the learned Standing Counsel contends that since the appellant was in hospital for about one month, the Tribunal granted Rs.21,480/- towards leave period, and therefore pleads that the interest @ 9% p.a. was awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side and the same may be reasonably reduced. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that considering the evidence of PW2 that though the appellant-claimant had suffered 40% permanent disability, the same was likely to go down to 30%, the Tribunal appears to have fixed the permanent disability at 25% for the sake of convenience without prejudice to the legal rights of the appellant. Therefore, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with in doing so and it cannot be said to be without any basis. However, awarding Rs.25,000/- towards disability appears to be on the lower side as contended by the appellant, as such, the same is hereby enhanced to Rs.40,000/-. It is evident from the impugned order that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards transportation charges though the appellant is stated to have been treated in the hospital as in-patient for about a month. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an amount of Rs.5000/- may be and is hereby awarded under this head. Awarding Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering appears to be on the lower side as the appellant-claimant was treated for a month in hospital as already stated hereinabove. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the same may be and is hereby enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Now, coming to the head of extra nourishment, the Tribunal failed to award any amount under this head. However, in the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.5000/- may be and the same is hereby awarded. Thus, the appellant-claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,06,480/- and the same appears to be just and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. So far as the interest part is concerned, it is settled law as per the decision reported in SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [1], in which the interest was reduced to 6% p.a. However, having regard to the other decisions of the Apex Court, awarding interest in such case may not exceed 7.5% p.a. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interest as awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. may be and is hereby reduced to 7.5% p.a. on the enhanced amount. With the above modification, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 09-09-2010 skm / isl / bcj [1] ) (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases-121