JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), aggrieved by the award dated 17.12.2003, passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.951 of 2001, awarding compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. 2. The respondent/petitioner filed the above O.P under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. 3. The brief averments made in the petition are that the petitioner was working as a driver in the respondent corporation in Yemmiganur Depot and on 02.11.2000 he was on duty for the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688 from Hyderabad to Kurnool. He left Hyderabad in the afternoon and was driving the bus with due care and caution on the extreme left side of the road. Whileso, near Kanimetta village of Mahabubnagar District, at about 2:30 p.m, another R.T.C bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and gave a dash to his bus, as a result, he sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was joined in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, and he took treatment for a long time and spent Rs.30,000/-. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner’s lower part of the body was paralysed. He cannot sit or walk independently. He always requires an attendant. He was removed from job on 28.02.2002. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 32 years and getting salary of Rs.4,075-40ps. From the date of removal from the job in February, 2002, the petitioner was not paid any salary or any amount and he was leading miserable life and therefore, prayed the Court to grant compensation. 4. The brief averments made in the counter filed by the respondent are as follows: “The respondent put the petitioner to prove the manner of accident, age and income of the petitioner. The respondent also put the petitioner to prove the injuries received by him. The respondent also denied that the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 was rash and negligent and due to it, the accident was caused. The respondent also put the petitioner to prove the injuries received by him. The respondent also denied that the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 was rash and negligent and due to it, the accident was caused. On the other hand, it was stated that the petitioner drove the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688 at high speed without observing that the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 was coming in opposite direction and as such, both the buses collided together and both the buses damaged extensively. One female passenger died on the spot, while other passengers sustained injuries. The petitioner himself is responsible for the accident and police also charge sheeted the petitioner for his rash and negligent driving and for causing the accident. The respondent further stated that the petitioner is entitled for monetary benefits from the corporation, but he has not submitted the claim forms. He was not cooperating with the officials to settle his service benefits. The respondent finally stated that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation except the service benefits and prayed the Court to dismiss the petition with costs.” 5. Basing on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed two issues and to substantiate the claim, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 got marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 was examined and no oral evidence was adduced. 6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 and awarded compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a on Rs.6,25,000/- to the petitioner against the respondent. 7. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the respondent preferred the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent argued that on the date of accident, the petitioner was driving the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688 in a rash and negligent manner and due to his rash and negligence, the accident was caused. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the accident and the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. It is also argued that on the date of accident, two buses of the corporation collided. Therefore, the petitioner is responsible for the accident and the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. It is also argued that on the date of accident, two buses of the corporation collided. The First Information Report and Charge Sheet shows the negligence of the petitioner and further argued that petitioner ought to have claimed compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and further, the Tribunal erred in applying the multiplier ‘17’ for the age of the petitioner and further, it is also argued that the claimant only asked Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, but the Tribunal without having any evidence on record awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further, the Tribunal awarded medical expenses of Rs.25,000,/- without any proof, whereas the petitioner failed to produce any medical bills and finally prayed the Court to allow the appeal. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent/petitioner argued that PW.2 lodged a complaint stating that one K. Narasimhulu is responsible for the accident and further, the petitioner got every right to choose, in which Forum he wants to claim compensation and also filed cross objections praying the Court to enhance the compensation as the Tribunal granted only meagre amount. It is also argued that the petitioner was removed from service and there is functional disability of 100% and the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for future earnings and therefore, prayed the Court to enhance the compensation as claimed in the petition. 10. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both parties, the only points which are to be decided in this appeal is as follows: 1. Whether the appellant/respondent is entitled for setting aside the award dated 17.12.2003 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.951 of 2001 or not? 2. Whether the respondent/petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation or not? and 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 11. POINT No.1: The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and in his evidence he narrated how the accident was caused on 02.11.2000. He also stated that while driving the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688 from Hyderabad to Kurnool, he was very careful and cautioned and was proceeding on the extreme left side, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142, the accident was caused. He also stated that several passengers were injured. He also stated that while driving the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688 from Hyderabad to Kurnool, he was very careful and cautioned and was proceeding on the extreme left side, but due to the rash and negligent driving of the R.T.C bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142, the accident was caused. He also stated that several passengers were injured. Though PW.2 is one of the passenger, who travelled in the bus, deposed that he boarded the bus on 02.11.2000 to go to Kurnool and the driver of the bus was driving the bus at normal speed and when another R.T.C bus came in opposite direction with high speed, he dashed the bus driven by the petitioner. 12. To prove the oral evidence, Ex.A1 certified copy of the First Information Report in Cr.No.139 of 2000 of Kothakota police station was filed. A perusal of Ex.A1 shows that one Sreenu, Kavalikaru (Talari) of Kanimetta village, gave a report stating that on the date of accident, he was standing near the bus stage and he witnessed the accident. According to him, the driver of the R.T.C bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 drove the bus in rash and negligent manner with high speed and gave dash to the bus driven by the petitioner i.e., bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688. He also stated that the passengers as well as both the drivers sustained severe injuries. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of the final report, wherein the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothakota, filed the report stating that the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 died and the case was closed as abated. 13. The contents of Ex.A1 clearly shows that the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 was rash and negligent and complainant is the independent person, who gave report to the police. Further RW.1 conductor of A.P.S.R.T.C Depot, Cuddapah, was examined. According to him, he cannot not say, how the accident occurred. He had not given any report to the police. The Tribunal after perusing the evidence of PW.1 and RW.1 clearly held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142. Further, it is also clearly held that if there is no fault on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142, nothing prevented RW.1 to give a report to the police against the petitioner, who drove the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688. Further, it is also clearly held that if there is no fault on the part of the driver of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142, nothing prevented RW.1 to give a report to the police against the petitioner, who drove the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7688. On the other hand, he clearly stated that he cannot say how the accident occurred. At that time, he was writing the S.R. Thus, considering the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and RW.1, coupled with Ex.A1 and Ex.A3, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No.AP.10Z.7142 and the said finding needs no interference by this Court. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent argued that the petitioner being the employee of the corporation could have claimed the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, but not under the Motor Vehicles Act. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner contended that both the Acts are beneficial enactments and the petitioner can proceed either under the Workmen’s Compensation Act or under the Act. It is held by this Court in a decision reported in Kore Laxmi & Ors v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors., 2003 (3) L.S. 313 as follows: “General rule of rash and negligent driving to claim compensation under M.V Act was diluted by introduction of Sec.163-A – Dependants of deceased person are having option either to approach Commissioner under Workmen’s Compensation Act since person died during course of his employment or u/Sec.163-A of M.V Act – Since provisions of M.V Act are more beneficial claimants rightly approached M.V Tribunal.” “This being welfare legislation is intended to provide financial assistance to the dependants of the person involved in a road accident and incurred inability or suffered death. Hence, we have no hesitation to hold that the dependants of the deceased person are having option either to approach the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act since the person died during the course of his employment.” Now in the present case, the petitioner sustained injuries during the course of his employment as driver in the appellant corporation and he rightly opted for the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. To prove his oral evidence, he filed Ex.A2 wound certificate, in which four injuries were shown. To prove his oral evidence, he filed Ex.A2 wound certificate, in which four injuries were shown. As per the evidence of the doctor, Injury Nos.2 & 4 are grievous in nature, whereas injury Nos.1 & 3 are simple in nature. PW.3 is the Orthopaedic Surgeon, Government Hospital, Kurnool, who clearly stated in his evidence that the petitioner is having permanent disability of 60% and the petitioner was found with a sensation below the umbilicus diminished, tenderness over fracture site present, waddling gait, saddle area anaesthesia present and chronic deep now-healing ulcers over ishial region present. He also stated that petitioner is suffering from Traumatic Paraplegia (Wedge Compression L1). As per the evidence of PW.1, he was admitted in the hospital on 02.11.2000 initially and discharged on 04.01.2001. Again, he joined in Neuro Surgeon Ward on 22.02.2001, surgery was conducted on 24.03.2001 and he was discharged on 29.05.2001. Therefore for the considerable period, the respondent/petitioner was in the hospital while he took the treatment. As per the evidence of the doctor, the petitioner suffered two grievous injuries and due to these two injuries, the petitioner must have suffered inconvenience and pain and further, the doctor opined that he suffered 60% permanent disability. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed under Ex.A6 and removed from service as per the proceedings under E.A9 on 28.02.2002 and the reason for his removal as he was medically unfit. The Tribunal after considering the evidence of the petitioner and the documentary evidence, calculated 60% disability and loss of future earnings as Rs.4,98,828/- and the said finding needs no interference. 15. Coming to the compensation granted by the Tribunal under the head of pain and sufferings as Rs.1,00,000/-, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the petitioner asked Rs.50,000/- only, but the Tribunal without giving any reasons granted the said amount. Therefore as the respondent/petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- he is entitled for the said amount. As the respondent/petitioner was removed from service and further he was suffering with 60% disability and his lower part was paralysed, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and Rs.25,000/- towards treatment and Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus the respondent/ petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,98,8278/- rounded off to Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. 16. As the respondent/petitioner was removed from service and further he was suffering with 60% disability and his lower part was paralysed, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and Rs.25,000/- towards treatment and Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus the respondent/ petitioner is entitled for Rs.6,98,8278/- rounded off to Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. 16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent argued that the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a to the petitioner and therefore, it has to be reduced in view of the settled laws. The Tribunal in the operative portion of the judgment awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 awarded interest only at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, discussing various provisions, which is as follows : “51. We allow the appeal in part accordingly. The appellants will be entitled to the said sum of Rs.1,65,246/- in addition to what is already awarded, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The increase in compensation awarded by us shall be taken by the widow exclusively. Parties to bear respective costs.” 17. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others v. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, 2012 ACJ 2328 the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded interest @ 7.5% p.a. In Rebeka Minz and others v. Divisional Manager, United India Limited Insurance Company Limited and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded interest at 7% p.a. 18. Thus, in view of the different rate of interests granted by the Apex Court in the judgments cited above, I am of the considered view that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and therefore, it is a fit case to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a. 19. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the respondent/petitioner from Rs.7,50,000/- to Rs.7,00,000/- and reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realisation, whereas the Cross Objection is dismissed. No order as to costs. 20. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.