HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award made by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No. 329 of 2000 dated 29.08.2003, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 36,612/- only together with 9% interest per annum. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as driver in the APSRTC but depot, Karimnagar on a salaryof Rs. 3,778/-. on 08.12.1997 while the appellant was driving APSRTC bus bearing registration No. AP 10 Z 40926 of Depot No. I, Karimnagar from Karimnagar to Shirdi at about 4.00 AM when the bus reached Padegaon bridge of Aurangabad District, Maharastra State, one MS RTC bus bearing registration No. MH 31 M 9501 came in the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed hit the RTC bus. As a result of which, the appellant and the conductor of the bus sustained injuries. The claimant received fracture of his left side eye brow, fracture of frontal bone and also fracture of lateral wall of left orbit. Hence, he laid a claim seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest. The petition against first respondent-driver of the crime bus was dismissed. The second respondent-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Mumbai filed counter denying the material pleas taken in the petition. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. MH-31-M- 9501 by the first respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief. On behalf of the appellant, the appellant himself was examined as PW-1 and examined one Dr. T. Sridhar Rao as PW-2 and Exs. A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked. With regard to first issue, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW-1 that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and with regard to issue No. 2 the Tribunal held that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries and granted an amount of Rs. 15,000/-. Further having received such injures the claimant could not have done any work for at least 4 months taking necessary treatment, awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1500/- towards transportation and Rs. 15,112/- towards loss of earnings totaling Rs. 36,612/- (15,000+5,000+1500+15,112) with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the appellant filed the present CMA seeking enhancement of compensation. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred on 08.12.1997on account of rash and negligent driving of the the Maharastra State RTC bus bearing registration No. MH 31M 9501by its driver. As per the evidence of PW-2, the claimant sustained fracture of frontal bone and as per Ex. A7 C.T. Scan brain report dated 9.12.19976 issued by Ellora Diagnostic Centre, Aurangabad to the effect that small hyperdense (CT attenuation of 250-270 HU) lesion was seen in his right temporal region s/o dense foreign body, metallic part, diffuse cerebral edema with specks of subarachndid, posterior interhemispheric fissural bleed found, multiple facial and cranial frctures noted in his mid frontal, right frontal. Even Ex. A-8 CT Scan report of head and brain which also provide similar evidence. The tribunal granted only Rs. 36,612/- in all towards injuries he suffered and loss of earnings and towards transportation. Therefore, in my considered view the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meager. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [1] [2] 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.” Following the above judgment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 36,612/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant is granted Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- towards medical bills in addition to the enhanced compensation totaling Rs. 85,000/- (50,000+10,000+25,000). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% is on high side and requested that the same may be reduced. Taking into consideration of Supreme Court judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.07.2010 KA [1] AIR 2003 SC 607 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261