JUDGMENT : The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioner and 1st respondent in M.V.O.P.No.321 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur. The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claim petitioner filed the petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 17.02.2010. 4. The brief averments in the petition filed by the petitioner are as follows: On 17.02.2010 at about 6.30 p.m. the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP 16TU 1881 parked it on the road near Vittamrajupalli village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, in negligent manner without keeping parking lights. When the petitioner and three others were travelling on a motor cycle bearing registration No.AP 07 AG 5763 and the person, who was riding the motor cycle, did not observe the stationed lorry and hit the same from behind, as there were no parking lights or any other signs indicating parking of the said lorry. As a result of which, the petitioner sustained severe injuries and a fracture to head and three others succumbed to injuries. A case in crime No.54 of 2010 was registered by Vinukonda P.S. against the driver of the lorry for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the lorry, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, hence, the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the liability of the 1st respondent. 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal : (1) Whether the accident occurred due to use of the motor vehicle bearing No.AP 16TU 1881? If so, Chintalapudi Ramakrishna Chari received injuries in the said accident? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? 6. Based on the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were settled for trial by the Tribunal : (1) Whether the accident occurred due to use of the motor vehicle bearing No.AP 16TU 1881? If so, Chintalapudi Ramakrishna Chari received injuries in the said accident? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? (3) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation, if any, the petitioner is entitled? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 and A.2 and X.1 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, based on the material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased arose out of the use of the offending lorry and accordingly, allowed the petition in part awarding an amount of Rs.27,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved against the said order, the appellant/Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 10. The appellant/Insurance company contended that the Tribunal failed to see that the petitioner did not examine any witness to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal also erred in awarding interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. which is exorbitant. 11. Now, the point for determination is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference of this Court? 12. POINT: The claim is made under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act whereunder the petitioners need not prove the rash and negligent driving. It is sufficient to prove that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In order to establish the accident, the petitioner got examined his father as P.W.1 and the doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.A.1. In his evidence, P.W.1 deposed that his son, while travelling on the motor cycle, the motor cycle hit a stationed lorry on 17.02.2010 at about 6.30 p.m., due to that, the petitioner received grievous injuries and he was treated as an in-patient in the Government General Hospital, Guntur. In his evidence, P.W.1 deposed that his son, while travelling on the motor cycle, the motor cycle hit a stationed lorry on 17.02.2010 at about 6.30 p.m., due to that, the petitioner received grievous injuries and he was treated as an in-patient in the Government General Hospital, Guntur. P.W.2 also deposed in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Guntur on 18.02.2010 and treated with the medical management. Exs.A.1-certified copy of first information report goes to show that the petitioner and three others, while travelling on the motor cycle, hit the stationed lorry and received severe injuries. It is the contention of the appellant/Insurance company that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry. But, the appellant failed to examine either the driver or the cleaner of the offending lorry to establish its contention. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A.1 clearly proves that the accident occurred out of the use of offending lorry and in the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. The Tribunal, on appreciating the material evidence on record, also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 13. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner received injuries to his head and he was treated as an inpatient in the Government General Hospital, Guntur from 17.02.2010 to 06.03.2010 and an operation was done to his head and due to the treatment, his son is not in a position to do any work and became disabled. 14. P.W.2-doctor deposed in his evidence that on 18.02.2010 the petitioner was admitted in the Government General Hospital, Guntur; on 24.02.2010 MRI scan was taken which discloses contusions in temporal and frontal lobes; the petitioner had weakness in left upper and lower limbs; Ex.X.1 is the case sheet of the petitioner and because of brain injury, the left side of lower and upper limbs became weak and the injury is grievous in nature; and there is a possibility of improvement of the condition of the patient. In cross-examination, he stated that he discharged the petitioner in a satisfactory condition. 15. In cross-examination, he stated that he discharged the petitioner in a satisfactory condition. 15. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Ex.C.1-case sheet of the petitioner clearly prove that the petitioner received a grievous injury to his brain, he was treated as an in-patient in the Government General Hospital, Guntur, from 18.02.2010 to 06.03.2010, and the petitioner was discharged in a satisfactory condition without any disablement. 16. Considering the material evidence on record, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards compensation for extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and inconvenience and Rs.10,000/- for the grievous injury including probable loss of present and future earning capacity. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.27,000/-. The Tribunal by giving cogent reasons awarded the said compensation of Rs.27,000/-. There is no legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 17. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force as on the date of the accident. The same is not disputed by the respondents. Therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 18. Insofar as awarding of interest @ 7.5% p.a. is concerned, this Court finds merit in the submission of the learned standing counsel for the appellant/Insurance company that the Tribunal awarded exorbitant rate of interest, since the accident occurred in the year 2010, therefore, the same has to be reduced from 7.5% p.a. to 6% p.a. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of and the decree and order dated 30.07.2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Guntur, in M.V.O.P.No.321 of 2010 is modified by reducing the rate of interest from 7.5% p.a. to 6% p.a. The order of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain intact. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.