HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA.No. 1757 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the APSRTC represented by its Managing Director, Hyderabad against the award dated 03.02.2005 passed in O.P.No.151 of 2003 by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (F.T.C.), Hyderabad. The claimant/respondent herein filed the said O.P seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.04.2002 involving bus bearing registration No.AP-9-Z-1574. 2. Facts stated are: On 22.04.2002 while the claimant was going on motor cycle driven by one Sekhar Reddy and when the motor cycle reached Macharla village near Kalwakurthy of Mahaboobnagar district, the accident bus in question came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver, dashed the motor cycle due to the impact of the same, the claimant fell down and suffered injuries and was shifted to Area Hospital, Kalwakurthy and from there he was referred to Osmania General Hospital. It is stated that the claimant sustained grade III compound fracture of shaft femur on right clavical as stated in Exs.A-3 to A-5. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as PW.2. PW.2 speaks about the nature of injuries and the treatment he has given to the claimant. The disability assessed is 60%. As on date of the accident, the claimant was aged 25 years and he was doing agricultural and labour work and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month. To prove his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and doctor who treated him as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-34. None was examined on behalf of the respondents nor any documents were marked. The Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced on the question of culpability in causing the accident, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident bus in question which in the facts and circumstances of the case does not warrant any interference. Coming to the question of adequacy or otherwise of the compensation granted by the Tribunal, it has come in the evidence that the claimant was aged 25 years and was doing labour and agricultural works. Though the claimant has stated that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal on an average took Rs.2,000/- as his monthly earnings and granted amounts under various heads amounting to Rs.2,20,000/- as against the claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. Since it has come in the evidence that the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 60% and considering the fact that the claimant suffered this disability at a very young age, the amount granted by the Tribunal cannot be said to be exorbitant. 3. In the circumstances, the appeal filed by the APSRTC is dismissed. However, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 4. In the result, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 SP/KK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA.No. 1757 OF 2006 03-03-2011 SP/KK