HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM OHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 1128 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 4.1.2007 passed by the IV Additional District Judge -cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool (for short ‘the Tribunal ’) in OP No. 860 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.1.2001 at about 8.00 PM when the claimant going towards his residence on Netaji Talkies at Kurnool and when he reached near Prakasam Nagar Centre, an auto bearing o. AP 21T-9475 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his back and due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The first respondent owner of the auto bearing No. AP 21T-9475 remained ex-parte and the second respondent- National Insurance Company Limited filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the claim of the claimant is not genuine and accordingly, dismissed the O.P. 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 learned Judge ought to have awarded compensation for the loss of earnings by the claimant having seen the certificates filed by the claimant and it ought to have awarded compensation for the future expenses for the injuries sustained by a minor boy. As the mother of the claimant is an illiterate and she could not lodge a complaint to the police in time. Therefore, delay in lodging the complaint was occurred. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as there was no evidence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the OP and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 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 8.1.2001 at abut 8 PM when the claimant was going towards his residence on Netaji Talkies road at Kurnool and when he reached near Prakasam Nagar Centre, an auto bearing No. AP-21T-9475 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his back. As a result of which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. The claimant is aged about 17 years and he was hale and healthy before the accident and he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing miscellaneous work and he spent Rs. 1,50,000/- towards medicines. The claimant also produced certified copy of wound certificate vide Ex. A3 dated 18.5.2001 issued by Noble Nursing Home, Kurnool. PW-3, Dr. K. G. Govinda Reddy, who deposed that the claimant was discharged on 9.1.2001 as he wanted to take treatment in another hospital. But Ex. A3 wound certificate issued by him shows that the claimant was discharged on 9.1.2001. Apart from that PWs 2 to 4 are the independent witnesses and they deposed that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 1,50,000/- is granted towards compensation for the amount spent towards medicines for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 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 granting compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261