HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3080 OF 1999 DATED: 09.10.2009 BETWEEN: A.P.S.R.T.C. and another .. Appellants And K.Narasimhulu and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3080 OF 1999 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed against the Award dated 26.02.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Hindupur in O.P.No.101 of 1993. 2. The first respondent filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into the claim, awarded compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 3. Assailing the said award, the A.P.S.R.T.C. filed the present appeal questioning its liability as well as the quantum of compensation. 4. According to the first respondent on 09.07.1993 at about 9.00 A.M while he was proceeding on scooter bearing No.AP 02 B 5049 as a pillion rider and when his friend, who was driving the scooter was negotiating the curve at Sivalayam cross on Hindupur – Madakasira road, the APSRTC bus bearing No. AEZ 4078, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner coming from the opposite direction dashed right knee of the first respondent, as a result, the first respondent fell down and became unconscious. He underwent treatment at Government Hospital, Hindupur. Subsequently, he was shifted to a Suskruth Nursing Home at Bangalore where he underwent operation of his right knee. Ultimately, he sustained permanent disability. He was working as Executive Officer in Grampanchayat in Panchayatraj Department. He was aged about 48 years on the date of accident. 5. The first respondent/claimant examined himself as PW.1, one eyewitness as PW.2 and the doctor as PW.3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11 on his behalf. Whereas the appellant – APSRTC neither examined any witness nor marked any document on it’s behalf. 6. The learned Tribunal on considering the material on record granted compensation of Rs.2,01,000/- to the first respondent with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal below requires any interference in this appeal as regards the liability of the appellant to pay compensation and also regarding the quantum of compensation. 8. PW-1, the injured and PW.2–eyewitness who is a passenger in the APSRTC bus bearing No. AEX 4078, which was allegedly involved in the accident, had categorically stated in their respective depositions about the bus being driven in a rash and negligent manner and with great speed and dashing PW.1. According to both the witnesses, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus. 9. This apart, Ex.A.5 certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No. 211 of 1993, dated 24.08.1995 on the file of the Judicial Maistrate of First Class, Hindupur reveals that the driver of the APSRTC bus bearing No.AEZ 4078 was convicted by the Magistrate for the offence under Section 338 IPC for causing grievous injury to the first respondent by rash and negligent driving. No contra evidence was let in by the appellant, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Ex.A.1 certified copy of the first information report, Ex.A.5 – certified copy of the judgment arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus, the said finding does not call for any interference in this appeal and the same is confirmed. 10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the evidence of PW.1, the injured as well as the evidence of PW.3, doctor, coupled with the contents of Ex.A.3 – certified copy of wound certificate and Ex.A.7 disability certificate clearly indicates that the claimant sustained grievous injury caused to the right knee resulting in permanent disability. 11. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the claimants, the period of treatment he had undergone Ex.A.9 and A.10 medical bills for an amount of Rs.21,254.27ps and Rs.10,505/- respectively, the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable and the said compensation including the amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering is not excessive, but just and reasonable and thus, the quantum of compensation also needs no interference in this appeal. 12. However, the learned Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, which is highly excessive and not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions. Therefore, in this appeal the interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 13. With the above reduction in the rate of interest on the amount of compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:09.10.2009 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3080 OF 1999 9th OCTOBER, 2009