HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1339 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claimants Tribunal, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP No. 159 of 1999 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 18.8.1997 at about 3.00 PM while he was waiting for bus near bye-pass road Kolanukonda Village, Guntur District, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. AP 16 U 447 driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant and ran over him due to which the claimant sustained fracture to his right femer, right thigh bone and compound fracture of both bones of left leg and other multiple injuries and the entire right leg on the knee joint was badly crushed. First respondent-owner of the bus bearing No. AP 16 U 447 remained ex parte. The second respondent-Oriental Insurance Company being insurer of the said bus filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Bus bearing No. AP 16U 447 and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2, Assistant Professor Orthopaedics, Government General Hospital, Guntur opined that inspite of the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant can drive the vehicle with some difficulty and that he will be facing difficulty in getting into cabin and out of the cabin and he is not in a position to change the wheels of the lorry, and also taking into consideration of Ex. A3, granted total compensation of Rs. 1,11,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal failed to observe that the claimant is not in a position to do the work as he was doing earlier and ought to have awarded 100% compensation. He also submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the appellant under went treatment for four months, failed to take note that the injuries take lot more time to heal and ought to have awarded compensation for loss of earning as claimed by the claimant. 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 due to rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing No. AP 16 U 447 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy before the accident. Due to the accident, he sustained fracture to his right femer, right thigh bone and compound fracture of both bones of left leg and other multiple injuries and the entire right leg and other multiple injuries and entire right leg and the knee joint was badly crushed and PW-2 who gave treatment to the claimant also stated that the claimant can drive the vehicle with some difficulty, and that he will be facing difficulty in getting into cabin and out of the cabin and he is not in a position to change the wheels of the lorry. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards pain and suffering for four simple injuries suffered by him. It is sated that the claimant remain bed ridden after discharge for nine more months and he was unable to discharge his obligations by virtue of confinement to house. In the circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have granted some more amount under this head. Hence, I feel it appropriate to enhance the amount granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Ex. A-3, wound certificate shows that the claimant suffered fracture injury on the middle condyle of right femur and fracture injury of shaft of left tibia and also 4 simple injuries i.e., abrasion measuring 6 cm x 3 cm on upper 1/3rd of right leg, abrasion measuring 7.cm x 3 cm on right thigh, abrasion measuring 4cm x 2 cm on small back red in colour sutured wound 3 in number on right perietal region. Hence, taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances and also the pain suffered by the claimant an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is granted under the head pain and suffering totaling Rs. 28,000/- (20,000 + 8,000 = 28,000). 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 emphasize 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. 6. In the circumstances and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the amount granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,11,000/- to 1,39,000/- under all the heads. 7. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.8.2010 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261