HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 33 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.9.2006 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 2719 of 2004 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 18.8.2002 at about 12.30 hours when the claimant was proceeding on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 A 2427 as a rider from Thrukayamjal to Hyderabad along with one pillion rider Krishnam Raju, and when they reached near Injapur Tank Bund on Sagar Road, one Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 12B 4843 in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver dashed against the claimant and as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries all over the body. The first respondent owner of the Car bearing No. AP 12 B 4843 and the second respondent insurer of the Maruthi Car field their counters respectively denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 12B 4843 by its driver belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs.3,31,379/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Court below wrongly granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. He also submits that the court below ought to have taken the income of the appellant as Rs. 3,000/- per month instead of Rs. 1250/- per month and ought to have calculated disability at 60%. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs. 2,21,000/- for future medical expenditure for artificial hip joint instead of Rs. 1,00,000/-. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and it has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the order of the Court below is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order with regard to quantum of compensation but as far as rate of interest is concerned, the same may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 18.08.2002 at about 12.30 hours when the claimant was proceeding on a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 A 2427, one Maruthi Car bearing No. AP 12B 4843 in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver dashed against the claimant and as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries all over the body. PW-2 doctor clearly stated that the claimant is having limping restriction of movements of right leg and he is unable to walk long distance and he cannot stand long time and the doctor assessed the disability at 60%. It is stated that the claimant is aged about 31 yeas and is working as Advocate Clerk and getting an income of Rs. 3000/-. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2000/- per month is taken as the income of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/- and if deducted the disability of 60% as assessed by the doctor the net amount comes to Rs. 14,400/-. The relevant multiplier for the age of 31 years is 16 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT. SARALA VERMS AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTEHR[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 2,30,400/- (14,400 x 16 = 2,30,400). The medical expenses at Rs. 43,879/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- future expenses granted by the Tribunal will remain as it is. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,74,279/- (Rs. 2,30,400 + Rs. 43,879 + 1,00,000/- = Rs. 3,74,279). 7. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] held that the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same not a wind fall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Tribunals even the tort feasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring the innocent person for no fault of his and the guidelines from such precedents is only to emphasise that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be preferred than the one which has adopted the conservative approach.” 8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 3,31,379/- to 3,74,279/-. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 10.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261