Judgment :- The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the Insurance Company against the fair and decreetal order dated 22. 1999 made in MCOP Nos.1868/96 and 1869/96 on the file of the III Small Causes Judge (MACT), Chennai. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:- The respondents / claimants are injured in a motor accident on 25.05.1996 at about 1.30 a.m. (mid night). Both the claimants were going in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TSH-57 from west to east direction in the Ambattur Estate Road, Madras-58. The claimant in CMA No.1594 of 1999 is the pillion rider and the claimant in CMA No.1595 of 1999 is the rider of the motorcycle. At that time, a van bearing Registration No.TN-07-Z-2329, driven by its driver at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the accident, both the claimants sustained grievous injuries. The first appellant is the owner of the van. The van was insured with the second appellant/Insurance Company. The claimant in MCOP No.1868/96 (CMA No.1594 of 1999) claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- but restricted the claim to Rs.1,50,000/-before the Tribunal. The claimant in MCOP No.1869/96 (CMA No.1595 of 1999) claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Tribunal. The second appellant / Insurance Company resisted the claims. On pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- a) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van or not? b) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation or not? If so, what is the amount and from whom? After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver and awarded a compensation of Rs.77,500/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.1868/96 (CMA No.1594 of 1999) and Rs.39,900/-with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition in respect of MCOP No.1869/96 (CMA No.1595 of 1999). Aggrieved by the awards, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both these appeals are as under:- MCOP No.1868 of 1996 (CMA No.1594 of 1999):- Rupees Loss of income during the treatment period from 25. 1996 to 26. Aggrieved by the awards, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. The details of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both these appeals are as under:- MCOP No.1868 of 1996 (CMA No.1594 of 1999):- Rupees Loss of income during the treatment period from 25. 1996 to 26. 1996 1,500/- Transport expenses 1,000/-Nourishment 2,000/- Medical expenses 21,500/-Loss of income during the treatment period from 8. 1997 to 8. 1997 1,500/- Pain and suffering 10,000/-Disability 40,000/- Total... 77,500/- =========== MCOP No.1869 of 1996 (CMA No.1595 of 1999):- Rupees Transport expenses 400/-Nourishment 1,000/- Medical expenses 1,000/- Loss of future income 3,000/-Pain and suffering 7,500/-Loss of income due to disability 25,000/-Loss of income during the treatment period 2,000/- Total... 39,900/- =========== Aggrieved by the awards, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company questioned only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in both these appeals and vehemently contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in these appeals are excessive and exorbitant, without basis and justification, and that therefore, the common order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and the same has to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents / claimants submitted that the Tribunal had considered all the materials and evidence available on record and came to the correct conclusion and awarded a just, fair and reasonable compensation in both these appeals. It is therefore, submitted that the common order passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law and the same has to be confirmed. 5. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant in CMA No.1594 of 1999. P.W.2 is the claimant in CMA No.1595 of 1999. P.W.3 is Dr.J.R.R. Thiagarajan. Heard the counsel. On the side of the claimants, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. P.W.1 is the claimant in CMA No.1594 of 1999. P.W.2 is the claimant in CMA No.1595 of 1999. P.W.3 is Dr.J.R.R. Thiagarajan. The following are the details of exhibits marked on behalf of the claimants:-Ex.P1 and Ex.P2-Discharge Summaries Ex.P3 and Ex.P4-Bills given by the Vijaya Hospital Ex.P5-Slips given by the Doctor Ex.P6-Medical bills Ex.P7-Leave Certificate given by Lucas-TVS Company Ex.P8-Discharge Summary given by Ayesha Hospital Ex.P9 and Ex.P10-Disability Certificates After considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver. The findings of the Tribunal are based on valid materials and evidence. 6. MCOP No.1868 of 1996 (CMA No.1594 of 1999):- The claimant was 22 years old at the time of accident. He is working as Apprentice in Lucas-TVS Company. He claimed that he is earning a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month. Due to the accident, he sustained the following injuries:- "Fracture over right hand joint and dislocation of bone over right hand steel plate insert and fixed over the right hand, fracture and dislocation of bone over right leg and multiple injuries all over the body." After the accident, he took treatment in the Ayesha Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Kilpauk, Chennai10 and Vijaya Hospital, Vadapalani, Chennai. He was treated as in-patient from 25. 1996 to 6. 1996 and thereafter treated as out-patient. Due to the accident, he is unable to walk, stand with the help of the right leg and unable to lift anything with the help of the right hand and do the work as before. He was taking treatment from 25. 1996 to 17. 1996 and from 8. 1997 to 8. 97. Therefore the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards loss of income for the treatment period from 25. 1996 to 26. 1996, which I feel is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. As per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, Discharge Summaries, the claimant was taking treatment as in-patient in the Vijaya Hospital from 25. 1996 to 6. 1996 and also he took treatment in the same hospital from 8. 1997 to 8. 1997. 1996 to 26. 1996, which I feel is very reasonable and hence the same is confirmed. As per Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, Discharge Summaries, the claimant was taking treatment as in-patient in the Vijaya Hospital from 25. 1996 to 6. 1996 and also he took treatment in the same hospital from 8. 1997 to 8. 1997. Ex.P7 is Leave Certificate given by Lucas-TVS Company. Based on these evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards transport expenses and Rs.1,500/- towards loss of income during the treatment period from 8. 1997 to 8. 1997, which I feel are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards nourishment, which I feel is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.21,500/-towards medical expenses. Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the bills given by the Vijaya Hospital. Ex.P6 are the medical bills. Taking into consideration of these evidence, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.21,500/- towards medical expenses. It is an actual expenditure and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries stated above, I feel that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering at Rs.10,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/-towards disability. P.W.3, the Doctor, has examined the claimant and assessed the disability at 40%. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the age of the claimant, nature of injuries stated above and also the treatment taken by the claimant in the hospitals, has awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards disability. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards disability at Rs.40,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The total award amount granted by the Tribunal at Rs.77,500/-is based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the same, so as to warrant interference. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive. Taking into consideration the fall of interest rate over the years, it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the interest rate to 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive. Taking into consideration the fall of interest rate over the years, it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the interest rate to 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Therefore the claimant is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.77,500/-, but the interest rate alone is modified from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. 7. MCOP No.1869 of 1996 (CMA No.1595 of 1999):- The claimant was 25 years old at the time of accident. He is doing Real Estate business. He claimed that he is earning a sum of Rs.3,000/-per month. Due to the accident, he sustained the following injuries:- "Fracture over right leg thigh, fracture & dislocation of bone over right hand little finger, crush & deep cut injury over right leg knee ankle foot and multiple injuries all over the body." After the accident, he took treatment in the Ayesha Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Kilpauk, Chennai10 and later he took treatment at Puthur for bone setting as in-patient from 25. 1996 to 25. 1996. Because of the accident, he is unable to walk, stand with the help of the right leg and unable to lift anything with the help of the right hand and do the work as before. Even though the claimant claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month from Real Estate business, no documentary evidence filed to substantiate the claim. Therefore the Tribunal was of the view that the claimant is earning a sum of Rs.2,000/-per month and awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards loss of income during the treatment period, which I feel is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.400/- towards transport expenses and Rs.1,000/-towards nourishment, which I feel are very reasonable and hence they are confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards medical expenses. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses and hence it is confirmed. After taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant was taking treatment from 26. 1996 to 210. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/-towards medical expenses. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses and hence it is confirmed. After taking into consideration of the fact that the claimant was taking treatment from 26. 1996 to 210. 1996, i.e., for a period of four months, and also that he took treatment for the bone fracture, the Tribunal was of the view that the claimant would have certainly taken rest for some months after the treatment, and awarded a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards loss of future income. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future income at Rs.3,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards pain and suffering. After taking into consideration the nature of injuries stated above, I feel that the Tribunal has correctly awarded Rs.7,500/- towards pain and suffering and hence it is confirmed. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income due to disability. P.W.3, the Doctor, has examined the claimant and assessed the disability at 50%. Even though the Tribunal has not fully accepted 50% disability assessed by the Doctor, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income due to disability. The amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income due to disability at Rs.25,000/- is very reasonable and hence it is confirmed. The total award amount granted by the Tribunal at Rs.39,900/-is based on valid materials and evidence and I do not find any error or legal infirmity in the same, so as to warrant interference. The interest rate awarded by the Tribunal at 12% p.a. from the date of petition is excessive. Taking into consideration the fall of interest rate over the years, it would be appropriate and reasonable to reduce the interest rate 9% p.a. from the date of petition. Therefore the claimant is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.39,900/- but the interest rate alone is modified from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. 8. In respect of both the appeals, it is stated that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amounts awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore the claimant is entitled to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.39,900/- but the interest rate alone is modified from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. 8. In respect of both the appeals, it is stated that the Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amounts awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant in MCOP No.1868 of 1996 (CMA No.1594 of 1999) is permitted to withdraw the award amount of Rs.77,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The claimant in MCOP No.1869 of 1996 (CMA No.1595 of 1999) is permitted to withdraw the award amount of Rs.39,900/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition. The Insurance Company is also permitted to withdraw the balance amounts in respect of both these appeals, on making proper applications. 9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are partly allowed. No costs.