THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 2143 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 10-03-2008 in O.P.No.1327 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. The claimant is the appellant. He filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by him in an accident. It is stated that on 14.04.2006 at 10.00 pm while he was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP-24A-1218 on the extreme left side of the road from Nalgonda Cross roads, Bhongir Town towards Ramnagar, Bhongir Town and when he reached near toddy compound, the auto of the first respondent driven rashly, negligently and at a high speed by its driver came in the opposite direction and hit the scooter, due to which he fell down and received multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to local hospital, Bhongir Town and after giving first aid, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital. As there was strike of Junior Doctors at Gandhi Hospital, he was shifted to Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, Dilsukhnagar, where he was treated as inpatient for two months and underwent number of operations. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the learned Judge framed the points as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP-22V-2025 by its driver and whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so to what amount and from whom? On behalf of the appellant, he examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-16. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Judge answered the first and second issues in favour of the appellant and as regards the third issue, an amount of Rs.3,68,000/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the learned Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has awarded only Rs.3,000/- per month, as the earnings of the appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. He further contended that the learned Judge ought to taken the disability of the appellant at 100% instead of 60% since the appellant is unable to carryout his profession as masonry mastery. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the appellant, the learned Judge has granted only Rs.3,000/- per month which in my considered view is meagre. The Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation[1] 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 Learned Judges or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Learned Judges 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.” In view of the above, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it would meet ends of justice if the loss of monthly earnings of the appellant is taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. P.W.2, the doctor, who treated the appellant in Sai Sanjeevini Hospital deposed that the appellant was admitted in hospital on 15.04.2006; that he conducted inter locking nail of left femur, DOS plating left tibia, POP and MRD for left hand; that the appellant was discharged on 04.05.2006; that again when he examined the appellant on 30.04.2007, he noticed post traumatic stiffness of both left upper limb and left lower limb and shortening and stiffness of left ankle and that he issued Ex.A.11-disability certificate opining that the appellant sustained 60% disability. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards loss of monthly earnings, which comes to Rs.48,000/- per annum, out of which 60% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.28,800/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 25 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] is “18”. Then, the compensation towards 60% disability comes to Rs.28,800X18=Rs.5,18,400/-, but since the appellant has claimed Rs.5,00,000/-, his claim is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,68,000/-to Rs.5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.03.2011 va [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129