JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - The Judgment dated 7th May, 1999 passed by the Member, 2nd MACT (SD), Berhampur in MAC No. 489 of 1997 (87 of 1997) is assailed in this appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company u/s 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Respondent No. 1 -Jogendra Nahak was the claimant before the Tribunal in the aforesaid MAC. The scenario of facts reveals that on 14th September, 1996, while Respondent No. 1 along with two others who were also labourers was travelling in a mini-truck bearing registration number OR-07-A-7223 as labourers due to rash and negligent driving, the said vehicle met with an accident and capcised. Consequently, all the three labourers sustained grievous injuries. They were removed to a hospital where one of them expired and the life of the two others could be saved. Three claim cases (MACs) were filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation including the MAC No. 489 of 1997 (87 of 1997) filed by Respondent No. 1. All the said three MACs were heard by the Tribunal analogously and were disposed of by a common Judgment. 3. It appears that the owner of the offending mini-truck did not appear before the Tribunal after receiving notice and therefore he was set ex parte. So far as the MAC No. 489 of 1997 (87 of 1997), filed by Respondent No. 1 was concerned, the Appellant Insurance Company filed its written statement vaguely denying the averments made in the MAC petition and called upon Respondent No. 1 to strict proof thereof. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed four issues for deciding the case. On behalf of the claimants in all the cases, three witnesses were examined and twenty-seven documents were exhibited (including sixteen cash-memos.). Surprisingly the Appellant did not adduce any oral evidence and remained satisfied by exhibiting a Certificate of Insurance in respect of the offending vehicle and copy of a driving licence as Exts.A and B. In course of hearing, P.Ws 2 and 3 who had been injured in the accident clearly deposed that they were travelling in the offending vehicle along with another who died in the accident as coolies, and that due to rash and negligent driving the said vehicle capcised. Consequently they two sustained grievous injuries and the third labourer succumbed to the injuries. Consequently they two sustained grievous injuries and the third labourer succumbed to the injuries. Ext.6 was the FIR lodged with police with regard to the accident in question on the basis of which Chatrapur P.S. Case No. 198 of 1996 had been registered. 5. The investigating officer after investigation having found a prima facie case had submitted charge-sheet which had been marked Ext.12. The report submitted by the concerned MVI was marked as Ext.11 wherein he had opined that the accident had occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the offending vehicle. As stated earlier, the Appellant-Insurance Company did not adduce any rebuttal evidence. Its Counsel, though cross-examined the claimants' witnesses, nothing could be elicited from their statements to disbelieve the said witness. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case the Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 and his two associates were working as coolies and that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle the accident had occurred and Respondent No. 1 sustained grievous injuries. 6. After perusing the discharge ticket issued by the hospital where the Respondent No. 1 had been treated, the injury report, etc., the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 86,500.00 in his favour and directed interest to be paid on the said compensation amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the MAC till realisation. 7. The said Judgment/award is assailed in this appeal mainly on the ground that Respondent No. 1 was not working as a coolie in the offending vehicle but was travelling therein as a gratuitous passenger. 8. Mr. Dutta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, forcefully submitted that Respondent No. 1 being not a coolie but a passenger in a goods vehicle, the Appellant is not liable to pay any compensation for the injuries, if any, sustained by him. In support of such submission he pointed out certain discrepancies in the MAC petition. Referring to the statement of Respondent No. 1 in the said petition that he was self-employed, Mr. Dutta submitted that he (Respondent No. 1) was thus estopped from taking a stand that he was a coolie in the offending vehicle. In support of such submission he pointed out certain discrepancies in the MAC petition. Referring to the statement of Respondent No. 1 in the said petition that he was self-employed, Mr. Dutta submitted that he (Respondent No. 1) was thus estopped from taking a stand that he was a coolie in the offending vehicle. He also submitted that in fact Respondent No. 1 was a vegetable vendor and not a coolie, and he was travelling in the offending vehicle along with the other two as stated above as a passenger. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, referred to the narration of event in the MAC petition and submitted that the same would reveal that Respondent No. 1 was a coolie and in that capacity he was travelling in the offending vehicle. 9. Be that as it may, fact remains, no evidence had been adduced by the Appellant before the Tribunal repudiating the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants in all the three MACs to substantiate the plea that Respondent No. 1 and his two associates were not engaged as coolies in the offending vehicle. On cross-examination nothing could be elicited from the said witnesses so as to discredit them, and last but not the least no suggestion was given to the said witnesses that Respondent No. 1 and his associates were not coolies engaged in the offending vehicle, but were travelling therein as passengers. It is pertinent to mention here that in its written statement the Appellant never took the stand that Respondent No. 1 was not a coolie in the offending vehicle. Thus the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant made before this Court that the claimant was not a coolie cannot be accepted. 10. With regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of Respondent No. 1, it appears that the Tribunal had observed that the said Respondent had sustained grievous injuries, inasmuch as his collar bone had fractured and was in a protruding stage. He had also sustained injuries on his right chest, both the knees and head. He had been hospitalized for two months. His collar bone had been plastered, two to three bottles of blood had been transfused. His waist had also been plastered. He had also sustained injuries on his right chest, both the knees and head. He had been hospitalized for two months. His collar bone had been plastered, two to three bottles of blood had been transfused. His waist had also been plastered. The bed-head ticket disclosed that he had been admitted in the hospital on 15-9-1996 and had been discharged on 2-10-1996. 11. The X-ray reports disclosed fracture of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 7th ribs of his right chest as also right clavicle. He had also undergone surgical operation. The I.O. had recorded the statement of the doctor who had treated the claimant. After perusing all these and considering the medical expenses of the claimant including the expenses on his attendants, his loss of earning for two months, permanent disfiguration, physical and mental pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 86,500.00. 12. Finding the award of aforesaid compensation amount to be just and proper, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However, finding the rate of interest awarded on the compensation amount to be on higher side this Court reduces the same from 9% to 7 1/2 %. With such modification in the rate of interest, this Court confirms the Judgment/award of the Tribunal and disposes of the present appeal accordingly.