JUDGMENT :- The 1st respondent filed OP No.281 of 1999, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, r claiming a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, as r compensation, for the injuries received by him in an accident that took place on 13.7.1998. It was pleaded that on that day he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-ll E-7659, towards Kothapet Fruit Market, and On the way, an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-28T-9732, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Serious injuries to the head and leg of the 1st respondent were caused, and it was alleged that the 1st respondent is the driver of a heavy vehicle, and on account of the injuries, he virtually became disabled. Particulars of the treatment undergone by him were also furnished. 2. The OP was contested by the appellant, as well as the 2nd respondent. Through its order dated 8.1.2002, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs 4,68,884/- as compensation, with interest at 12% per annum. The same is challenged in this CMA. 3. Sri T. Ramulu, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that though there existed some basis for awarding a sum of Rs.2,88,884/- towards medical expenses, on the basis of the bills, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs.80,000/towards future medical expenses, and Rs. 1,00,000/- for pain and suffering. He challenges the rate, at which the interest was awarded. Placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 , he submits that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is too high. 4. Sri Srinivas Velagapudi, learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent, on the other hand, submits that it was proved that, his client had undergone three major operations, and PW.3, an expert in the medical field, deposed that one more operation is needed. He submits that an amount of Rs. l,00,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, loss of earnings, extra-nourishment, etc., and no interference is warranted. 5. The occurrence of the accident and the fact that the 1st respondent received serious injuries to the head and leg, in the accident, were not denied. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent deposed as PW.l, and two other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3. He filed Exs.A.l to A7. 5. The occurrence of the accident and the fact that the 1st respondent received serious injuries to the head and leg, in the accident, were not denied. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent deposed as PW.l, and two other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3. He filed Exs.A.l to A7. On behalf of the appellant, RW.1 was examined and Exs. B.l to B.3 were marked. 6. A bunch of 145 medical bills, filed before the Tribunal, was marked as EX.A.3. The appellant did not suspect the genuinety of the bills and the tribunal was satisfied about the same. The very fact that three major surgeries were conducted to the head, apart from similar treatment to the leg, would easily disclose the volume of expenditure that is needed for them. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the award of a sum of Rs.2,88,884/-, covered by Ex.A.3. 7. It is true that normally no account can be awarded towards future medical expenditure. In the instant case, on behalf of the 1st respondent, PW.3 a doctor, who treated him, was examined. He fairly opined that having regard to the condition of the 1st respondent even at the time when the trial was going on, one more operation is needed. According to him, an expenditure of Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- is needed for it. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. l,00,000/-, on this count, and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. 8. Other heads, such as pain and suffering, extra-nourishment, loss of earnings were not dealt with by the Tribunal, independently. On the other hand, a lump sum of Rs. l,00,000/- was awarded for it. In Bhagawan Das's case (supra), this Court held that normally, a sum of Rs.15,000/can be awarded towards pain and suffering, even in case of major surgery. The 1st respondent had already undergone three surgeries; by the time the OP was decided. One more surgery was needed. Each time he needs extra-nourishment. Further, fairly for long spells of time, the 1st respondent would be denied of his income. When these factors are taken into account, awarding of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be treated as excessive. 9. Coming to the question of interest, in the matters of this nature, the Supreme Court uniformly held that it cannot exceed 7.5%. Therefore, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% to 7.5%. When these factors are taken into account, awarding of Rs. 1,00,000/- cannot be treated as excessive. 9. Coming to the question of interest, in the matters of this nature, the Supreme Court uniformly held that it cannot exceed 7.5%. Therefore, the rate of interest is reduced from 12% to 7.5%. Inasmuch as the sum of Rs. 80,000/-, is awarded as expenditure for future treatment, no interest can be awarded upon it. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the CMA is partly allowed, upholding the award of RsA,68,884/- as compensation, but directing that interest at the rate of 7.5% would be payable only Rs.3,88,884/-. In all other respects, the award passed by the Tribunal is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.