JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated03.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mancherial (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal is that on 29.07.2013 at about 6:00 p.m., while the petitioner was going towards ACC Mancherial, on his motor bike bearing No.AP1P-3789, when he reached near Laxmi Theatre at Mancherial, a Lorry bearing No.MH14AS-9277 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner from behind, as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government Area Hospital, Mancherial and from there to Renee Hospital, Karimnagar for better treatment. He incurred huge medical expenditure, and thus he claimed a compensation of Rs.65,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 29.07.2013 at about 06:00 p.m., near Laxmi theatre, Mancherial? 2. Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.MH-14-AS-9277? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so, how much and which of the respondents? 4. To what relief?” 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to A12 , Ex.X1 and X2, Ex.C1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.19,38,107/-. Aggrieved by the said award MACMA.No.649 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company and MACMA.No.621 of 2021 is filed by the claimants. 9. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.19,38,107/-. Aggrieved by the said award MACMA.No.649 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company and MACMA.No.621 of 2021 is filed by the claimants. 9. Heard the submissions of Smt. V. Durga, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimant is aged 30 years and was working as a Commission agent and was earning around Rs.9,800/- per month, while the tribunal has assessed his income to be very low and has granted meager amount of compensation. He further argued that the petitioner sustained 68% permanent disability, but the tribunal failed to consider the said aspect while awarding the compensation. He therefore, prayed to consider the said aspects and enhance the compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner failed to file any proof of income before the tribunal and that the commission alleged to have been earned by the petitioner to an extent of Rs.9,800/- per month need not be taken into consideration, as it cannot be constant every month. She further submitted that the disability of 68% is not supported by any document and that it is only temporary in nature and therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. She further argued that the rate of interest granted by the tribunal is very high and prayed to reduce the same to 7.5%. She further argued that the tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various heads without any reason. She therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief. 13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation, while the contention of the insurance company is that the compensation granted by the tribunal is very high. 2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief. 13. Point No.1: a) The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation, while the contention of the insurance company is that the compensation granted by the tribunal is very high. b) The injured-petitioner got examined as PW1 and he stated that he used to work as a Commission Agent in Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company and that he used to earn Rs.9,800/- per month as he was rendering private services under one Sampath, who is a Senior Insurance Advisor. Ex.A12 is the Certificate issued by Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company, certifying that the petitioner’s work is recognized for his contribution for the period from October 2012 to December 2012. He has also filed the IT returns under Ex.X1 and X2 for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 showing his total income as Rs.1,17,600/- in the year 2013-2014, Rs.43,200/- for the first half of 2014-2015. Thus, he could place it on record that he worked as an agent for Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company and that he used to earn on an average of Rs.9,800/- per month. Thus, based on the evidence on record, it was held rightly by the tribunal that the petitioner used to earn Rs.9,800/-per monthly, which is found to be justified. c) PW2/M. Sampath Kumar who is a General Insurance Agent, deposed that the injured-petitioner is his younger brother and that he used to do the Insurance Business. It is further elicited from him that following the accident, the petitioner stopped working. In his evidence Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 are marked. In his cross examination it is elicited that Ex.X1 and X2 are issued subsequent to the accident. No other doctor is examined in this case. d) RW1 is examined by the Insurance Company, contending that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving license. In his cross examination, it is elicited that they have not enquired about the genuineness of the driving license of the driver of the crime vehicle. e) The injury certificate discloses that the petitioner has sustained injuries in an accident on 29.07.2013, while the discharge summary discloses that he was operated in the Renee Hospital. The date of admission is on 30.07.2013 and the date of discharge is 21.08.2013. e) The injury certificate discloses that the petitioner has sustained injuries in an accident on 29.07.2013, while the discharge summary discloses that he was operated in the Renee Hospital. The date of admission is on 30.07.2013 and the date of discharge is 21.08.2013. A surgery was performed on 03.08.2013. Later on subsequently he was again admitted in 2015, as he suffered septicemia in the right lower limb, Rs.1,80,500/- is the final inpatient bill of Renee Hospital. f) He has filed Ex.A6/Discharge summary, out of which one is issued by Renee Hospital, which discloses that he was admitted in Renee Hospital on 01.07.2015, a surgery was performed on 10.07.2015 and was discharged on 16.07.2015, and he was treated for the following injuries i.e., 1) healed fracture right supra condylar femur, 2) fracture right proximal tibia with LCP INSITU, 3) cellulitis right lower limb with septicemia, 4) K/C/O psoriasis on treatment, 5) impaired liver function, 6) healed pulmonary koch’s sustained in the accident. He has also filed other bills of purchasing medicines. Ex.A8 is the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, showing that he sustained 68% of disability to his right lower limb, impaired reach, due to post traumatic sequel limbs sustained in an accident and that it is temporary disability. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering. g) He has also filed certain bills issued by Renee Hospital for diagnosis and also for purchase of medicines, the total bills filed by him falls to an extent of Rs.1,17,600/- apart from the inpatient bill. h) With regard to the medical expenses, the medical bills are filed to an extent of Rs.1,17,600/-, one I.P bill is of Rs.1,80,500/-, total comes up to Rs.2,98,100/-. It is common knowledge that the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of Rs.10,000/- for each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. i) The record shows that he was hospitalized for two spells i.e., once in 2013 and again in 2015. Therefore an amount of Rs.10,000/- for each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. i) The record shows that he was hospitalized for two spells i.e., once in 2013 and again in 2015. Therefore, he must have incurred again the expenditure under the transportation, incidental expenses etc., Therefore, further amounts of Rs.10,000/- under each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/-towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. Thus, an amount of Rs.80,000 + medical expenses of Rs.2,98,100 i.e., Rs.3,78,100/- is awarded under the heads medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and incidental expenses. j) With regard to the loss of earnings, in the first spell he was in the hospital for about 21 days and the nature of injury shows that he again developed septicemia in 2015. So the gravity of the injuries is such that he must have taken six months to heal in the first spell. During the second spell, again he was admitted for 16 days, he must have taken another three months for recovery. Therefore, an amount of Rs.9,800 x 9 = Rs.88,200 is the amount awarded under the head loss of earnings. k) With regard to the loss of future earnings, the disability certificate shows the age of the petitioner as 27 years in the year 2014, so he must have been aged 26 years as on the date of the accident (29.07.2013). In view of the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar , [2011 (10 SCC 343] , 68% of disability is scaled to 50% with regard to the whole body and the loss of future earning capacity is assessed as 25%. Therefore, adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.13,720/- and annual income would be Rs.1,64,640/-. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.1,64,640/- x25% x 17= Rs.6,99,720/-. Therefore, adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.13,720/- and annual income would be Rs.1,64,640/-. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.1,64,640/- x25% x 17= Rs.6,99,720/-. l) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1 Compensation under the head ‘injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- 2 Loss of earnings Rs.88,200/- 3 Loss of future earnings due to disability Rs.6,99,720/- 4 Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 3,88,100/- Total 13,76,020/- m) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.13,76,020/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.19,38,107/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. 14. Point No.2 :- a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.19,38,107/- to Rs.13,76,020/-. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 8% on the quantum of compensation. The contention of the counsel for Insurance Company is that it is too high. c) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Another , [2022 SCC Online TS 606] a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5%per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Others , [2023 SCC Online TS 1095] and National Insurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others , [2023 SCC Online TS 1170] ; also interest @ 7.5%per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. e) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam Lingaiah , [2024 SCC Online TS 915] ; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. f) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi , [2024 SCC Online TS 2050] ; has granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5%. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. POINT NO.3:- In the result MACMA.No.621 of 2021 filed by the claimants is dismissed, while MACMA.No.649 of 2021 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 03.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mancherial, by reducing the compensation from 19,38,107/- to Rs.13,76,020/- and by reducing the rate of interest from 8% to 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant in MACMA.No.649 of 2021-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.