THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.221 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent filed O.P.No.595 of 1997 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, as compensation. He pleaded that on 01.01.1995, he along with another person was travelling on a Scooter, bearing No.AHB-2258, to go to Pragnapur and when they reached Aliyabad Cross Roads, a Tractor, bearing No.AP 23 T 817, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, dashed against the scooter. The 1st respondent is said to have sustained multiple, grievous and compound injuries, to the right leg. He stated that knee-cap was broken into pieces and a part of the leg bone, together with the attached flesh, was missing. The particulars of the treatment undergone by him were also mentioned. He was said to have been working as Supervisor, on a monthly salary of Rs.2,500/-. The 2nd respondent filed a counter, admitting the occurrence of the accident, but stated that there exits a valid insurance policy from the appellant. The actual contest to the O.P., was the appellant herein. They denied the contentions of the 1st respondent by raising several grounds. The 1st respondent was put to strict proof of the facts pleaded by him. Through order dated 21.10.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,12,000/-, with interest at 12%, per annum. The directions were also given as to the making of deposits etc. The appellant feels aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. To prove his case, the 1st respondent examined PWs.1 to 4 and filed Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the appellant, no oral evidence was adduced, but a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. The controversy as to the occurrence of the accident stood resolved with the filing of counter by the 2nd respondent admitting the occurrence. In this appeal also, the grievance of the appellant was mostly about the quantum. The Tribunal awarded the compensation under as many as four heads, viz., loss of earnings, transport to hospital, extra-nourishment, compensation for pain and suffering and continuing disability. Under the first head, a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded by taking emoluments of the 1st respondent as Rs.2,500/-, per month, for one year, during which he is said to have undergone treatment. No infirmity is shown in relation to this finding. Towards ‘transport charges’, a sum of Rs.10,000/- and for ‘extra-nourishment’, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The bills that were filed as Ex.A.4, numbering 276 accounted for Rs.99,776/-. As a matter of fact, the bills do not cover certain other items of expenditure, namely transport charges of attendants. Therefore, no interference is warranted for the amounts awarded towards transport to hospital and extra-nourishment and medical expenditure. Towards ‘pain and suffering and continuing disability’, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,62,000/-. The disability was taken at two-third, since one of the legs of the 1st respondent virtually became dysfunctional. The correct multiplier was adopted. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the quantum of compensation. The Tribunal awarded interest at 12%. By any standard, it is excessive. Though the current trend is to award interest at 7%, per annum, having regard to the situation that was obtained as on the date of accident, 9% of interest can be awarded. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9%, per annum, but upholding the order in all other respects. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:16.11.2011 GJ