HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA.No. 1309 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rule 1989, directed against the order dated 09.03.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents’ Claims Tribunal- cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 325 of 2001 filed by the petitioner claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 30.07.2000 at about 8.30 PM when he was going from Kalyandurg road to Anantapur on Suzuki motor cycle AP03-C-6186, the auto bearing No. AP 02 U 1586 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and hit the motor cycle. As a result of the accident, the petitioner and his wife fell down and received multiple injuries. 1st Respondent being owner of the auto remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition including the accident injuries to the petitioner. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto disbelieved the evidence of PW-2 and the certificates created by him viz., Ex. A-1 to A-7 and held that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury and assessed the compensation towards pain and suffering at Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1,000/- respectively, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- towards medical and other expenses totaling to Rs.41,000/- with an interest thereon at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal did not appreciate the grievous injuries sustained and expenses he incurred towards treatment, transport, extra-nourishment. He also contended that the claim cannot be rejected on technical grounds that too in the absence of contra evidence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the Auto bearing No. AP 02U 1526 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner’s vehicle due to which, the petitioner and his wife fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by practicing Advocate. As per Ex.A-7 claimant was admitted in the hospital on 17.01.2002 and discharged on 18.01.2002. PW-2, doctor did not issue any disability certificate and he stated that the petitioner had undergone a treatment for the fracture of inter condilar region of left elbow, while, the said injury was grievous and there was a big scar on the left hand. He also submitted medical bills, which are marked as Exs.A5 and A7 showing the amount of Rs.31,690/- incurred towards medical expenses. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, as there was no disability, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is assessed for the two injuries (@ Rs.15,000/- for each injury), Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards future medical charges totaling to an amount of Rs.70,000/- 6. The Supreme Court also 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 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.” 7. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, the amount granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.41,000/- to Rs.70,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, on all counts directing that this amount shall be recovered from the insurer. 8. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 03.02.2011 SP/KK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA.No. 1309 OF 2005 03.02.2011 SP/KK [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261