Judgment : The appellant-Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short, ‘Corporation’), filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ’Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.666 of 1996 dated 12.03.2003, awarding high compensation of Rs.98,000/-(Rupees ninety eight thousand only) as against the claim of the respondent of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri V.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal was erred in arriving wrong conclusion on the huge quantum of compensation awarded by not going through the facts properly with regard to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant, medical certificate to prove nature of injuries and percentage of physical disability sustained by the claimant, the First Information Report to prove the occurrence, and also earnings of the claimant. Hence, to allow the appeal. 4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly abnormal and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so what amount to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 5. 4. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly abnormal and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so what amount to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 5. The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 18.05.1996 at about 2.30 p.m.,due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle (APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-5021) belongs to the appellant’s Corporation, hit the jeep (bearing No.AAY 1736) being driven by the claimant by name Mohd.Yousuf Khan, s/o Md.Mohammad Khan, aged 42 years, resident of Old Tarkaribazar, Dhangargalli, Tandur town, Ranga Reddy district, driver by avocation, while he was proceeding long with some passengers, as a result, he sustained multiple fracture to ribs, clavicle and right hand (Ex.A.2 discharge slip read with Ex.A.7 x-ray reports), which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in Cr.No.17 of 1996 under Section 337 and 338 IPC. After considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Chairman of the Tribunal, believing the occurrence, nature of injuries, medical expenses for treatment, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings, permanent disability, and transport charges and other aspects, awarded in all compensation of Rs.98,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand only) out of Rs.1,00,000/- against the appellant herein. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the grounds of the appeal that the compensation awarded is unjust, unreasonable and the Tribunal is erred in awarding such a huge amount though it was supposed to award just compensation by taking consideration of nature of injuries and medical expenses incurred for the nature of treatment and also loss of earning properly, the Tribunal ought not to have considered the false evidence of the claimant, ought to have seen that there was also rash and negligence on the part of the claimant and to set aside the Award of the Tribunal. 7. Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. 7. Before coming to decide, what is just compensation in the factual matrix of the case, It is apt to state that perfect compensation is hardly possible and money cannot renew a physique or frame that has been battered and shattered, nor relieve from a pain suffered as stated by Lord Morris. In Ward v. James (1965 (1) All.E.R 563), it was observed by Lord Denning that award of damages in personal injury cases is basically a conventional figure derived from experience and from awards in comparable cases. Thus, in a case involving loss of limb or its permanent inability or impairment, it is difficult to say with precise certainty as to what composition would be adequate to sufferer. The reason is that the loss of a human limb or its permanent impairment cannot be measured or converted in terms of money. The object is to mitigate hardship that has been caused to the victim or his or her legal representatives due to sudden demise. Compensation awarded should not be inadequate and neither be unreasonable, excessive nor deficient. There can be no exact uniform rule in measuring the value of human life or limb or sufferance and the measure of damage cannot be arrived at, by precise mathematical calculation, but amount recoverable depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Upjohn LJ in Charlered House Credit v. Tolly (1963 (2) All.E.R 432) remarked that the assessment of damages has never been an exact science and it is essentially practical. Lord Morris in Parry v. Cleaver (1969 (1) All.E.R 555) observed that to compensate in money for pain and for physical consequences is invariably difficult without some guess work but noother process can be devised than that of making a monitory assessment though it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. The Apex Court in R.D.Hattangadiv. Pest Control (India) Private Limited (1995 ACJ 366 (SC) at paragraph No.12 held that in its very nature whatever a Tribunal or a Court is to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standard. Thus, in most of the cases involving Motor Accidents, by looking at the totality of the circumstances, an inference may have to be drawn and a guess work has to be made even regarding compensation in case of death, for loss of dependent and estate to all claimants; care, guidance, love and affection especially of the minor children, consortium to the spouse, expenditure incurred in transport and funerals etc., and in case of injured from the nature of injuries, pain and sufferance, loss of earnings particularly for any disability and also probable expenditure that has to be incurred from nature of injuries sustained and nature of treatment required. 8. From the above legal position and coming to the factual matrix, the claimant-driver of the jeep, aged about 43 years, in collusion between the crime bus belongs to the appellant and the jeep, sustained injuries and the claim is for Rs.1,00,000/- and Tribunal awarded Rs.98,000/- as compensation. The APSRTC (respondent in the claim petition) as appellant came up with this appeal impugning the award on the quantum of compensation as excessive, unjust and unsustainable. In fact, as per the Ex.A.2 wound certificate-cum-discharge summery of government hospital, the injuries sustained are fracture to the clavicle left, fracture gallezis dislocation and fractures to 5th to 8th ribs and he was treated as in-patient for 26 days from 18.05.1996 to 13.06.1996. Taking into consideration of even the injuries sustained, its severity and for the medical expenditure said to have been incurred by the claimant for Rs.50,000/-, though some of the bills filed covered by Ex.A.4, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.98,000/- for the fracture injuries i.e. even taken at Rs.20,000/- each comes to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.10,000/- each to the four ribs comes to Rs.40,000/- including pain and sufferance, and Rs.18,000/- towards medical expenses incurred, nature of treatment, transport and attendant charges and loss of earnings is no way high side. This Court while sitting in appeal, nothing is to interfere on the quantum arrived at by the Tribunal or on the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus but for to reduce rate of interest from the settled proposition of law in TN Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya ( 2005 (6) SCC 236 ), Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation ( 2009 ACJ 1298 ) and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh (2013 (4) ALT 35 (SC), from 9%p.a. as awarded by the Tribunal to 7½% p.a. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration is answered. POINT-2: 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed dismissing the claim on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to reduce but with regard to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal of 9% p.a. is hereby modified to 7½% p.a. The appellant is directed to deposit balance amount if at all due within one month from today, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. There is no order as to costs.