HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 292 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.10.2004 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of cases under E.C Act cum III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XVII Additional Chief Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal ’) in OP No. 2483 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.7.2001 at about 7.30 PM when the claimant along with two others were proceeding on a scooter bearing registration No. APY 116 from Shamshabad to Hyderabad and when the Scooter reached Shivarampally Village in front of Diamond Weigh Bridge, a lorry bearing registration No. MP 7A 9624 came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver, dashed against the scooter. As a result of which, the claimant received grievous injuries. First respondent owner of the lorry and the second respondent insurer of the said lorry filed their separate counter affidavits denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. MP-07/A-9624 and taking into consideration the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 especially the evidence of PW-2, that the claimant took treatment in Osmania General Hospital for head injury on 18.1.2001, granted compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses totaling to Rs. 40,000/-. 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 Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry failed to award just and reasonable compensation. He also submits that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of earnings, extra nourishment, transport charges, attending charges and erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses when the appellant spent more than Rs. 35,000/-. He also submits that the learned Judge failed to award the amount as claimed inspite of the evidence on record and therefore, amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal 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. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 19.7.2001 at about 7.30 PM when the claimant along with two others were proceeding on a scooter bearing registration No. APY 116 from Shamshabad to Hyderabad and when the Scooter reached Shivarampally Village in front of Diamond Weigh Bridge, a lorry bearing registration No. MP 7A 9624 came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver dashed against the scooter. Due to which the claimant fell down and received grievous injuries. The claimant placing reliance on the evidence of PW-2, who treated the claimant and who stated that the claimant suffered head injury, and contents of Ex. A6 proved that the claimant received head injury and for that he also placed reliance on Exs A-9, A-10 medical bills and Ex. A-6 CT Scan report. Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Tribunal granted Rs. 40,000/- as compensation viz., Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Hence, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 40,000/- is granted in addition to the amount already granted by the Tribunal. Thus the total amount of compensation now awarded comes to Rs. 80,000/- (40,000 + 40,000= Rs. 80,000/-) 7. 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 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. 40,000/- to Rs. 80,000/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261