1. The appellant-claimant filed the present appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22-01-2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge For Trial of S.Cs/S.Ts (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgona (for short “the Tribunal”) in O.P.No.47 of 2016, whereby the Tribunal awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs.85,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 06-11-2015 at about 6:15 p.m., the appellant and his family members and one Kandula Ilaiah were travelling in his auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-24-TC-3914 from Jangaon to Raghavapuram Village and when the said auto rickshaw reached at the outskirts of Pembarthy Village, near BMR garden, Jangaon Mandal at about 6-30 p.m., the driver of a DCM van bearing No.AP-36-TB-1645 coming from Hyderabad side towards Jangaon side drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed to the said auto from the opposite direction, due to which the appellant sustained fracture of right radial of forearm and grievous injuries on chest and all over the body. Immediately, theappellant was shifted to Government Area hospital, Jangaon in 108 Ambulance for treatment; Kandula Ilaiah died and the mother of the appellant also sustained injuries in the said accident. On receipt of the complaint, the Police Jangagon of Warangal District registered a case in Crime No.308 of 2015, under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 IPC, against the driver of the DCM van bearing No.AP-36-TB-1645. Stating that prior to the accident, the appellant was quite hale and healthy and he was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as an auto driver and on account of the accident the appellant sustained grievous injuries and now he is unable to do any work and he became permanently disabled due to the injuries suffered in the accident, the appellant-claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accidentagainst respondent No.1 to 3 being the owner, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 i.e., owner and driver of the crime vehicle, while denying the averments of the claim petition, contended that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the insurance policy was in force on the date of the accident and in view of the contractual obligations between the owner and insurer and the in-force insurance policy, the petition against Respondents No.1 and 3 should be dismissed. Respondent No.2-insurer also denied all the averments of the claim petition and contended that at the time of accident, the driver of the DCM van (vehicle No. AP-36-TB-1645) held only a non-transport licence, which was not qualified to drive a transport vehicle; therefore, he was not legally authorised to drive that vehicle; the owner knowingly handed over the DCM van to an unqualified driver, which constitutes breach of the policy conditions and statutory requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thus, the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant under the insurance policy and accordingly sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.85,000/- to the appellant-claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, as against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- under various heads, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filling of the petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.2- insruance company. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded as grossly inadequate, the appellant preferred this appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. On a careful re-appraisal of the material on record, pleadings, medical evidence, disability certificate, income of the appellant as auto-driver, and the other documentary evidence (Exs.A-1 to A-10) this Court finds that the treating doctor (PW-2) has medically assessed permanent disability (post-traumatic stiffness of right forearm) at 40%, which indicates a long-term, functional impairment disabling the appellant from performing his previous vocation (auto- driving), or rendering his earning capacity significantly diminished. Even though the appellant’s socio-economic background and occupation (auto-driver) indicate a modest but steady monthly income of Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal wrongly disregarded the same on the ground of non-submission of documentary proof. Furthermore, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal under heads such as permanent disability, loss of future earning capacity, future prospects, pain & suffering, loss of amenities, which shows that the award is manifestly inadequate.Having regard to the nature of disability, age of appellant at the time of accident, occupation, and long-term consequences, this Court deems it appropriate to grant a lump-sum compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-in favour of the appellant.

7. Coming to the rate of interest, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cased of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Mannat Johal and others 1 and in several subsequent decisions held that the reasonable rate of interest to be awarded in motor accident claim cases shall be 7.5% per annum, this Court is of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal, in the instant case, is on the lower side and requires modification.

8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.