THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3226 OF 2005 Dated: 30.12.2010 Between: R.V.Ramana ... APPELLANT AND G.Ram Reddy and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3226 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 02-08-2005 in O.P No. 769 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. The claimant is the appellant. He filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. He pleaded that on 02-08-2002, at about 03.20 P.M., when he and one Nageswar Rao were proceeding on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 28 H 679 to go to their residence from Suraram side and when they reached D.P. Colony turning, one DCM Van bearing No. AHT 2294 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant’s motor cycle from its behind, due to which, he fell down and sustained fracture to his left hand, injuries to head, face, both legs, and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Ram Hospital, Hyderabad. Thereafter, he took treatment in Aswini Nursing Home, Kakinada as inpatient, undergone an operation and rods were also inserted. Prior to the accident, the appellant used to work in Topaz Blades Company and earn Rs.4,500/- per month. The respondents filed their counters denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the learned Judge framed necessary issues as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AHT 2294; whether the accident vehicle was insured with respondent No.2; whether there is any violation of policy conditions and whether the appellant is entitled for any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked and Ex.B-1 copy of Insurance policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Judge awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the learned Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has awarded only Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of earnings holding that the appellant could not have attended to work at least for a period of three months during his treatment. He further contended that though the doctor who was examined as PW 2 deposed that the appellant sustained 25% disability which is partial and permanent and issued Ex.A-10 certificate to that effect, the learned Judge has not taken the same into consideration holding that Ex.A10 is not issued by the doctor who treated the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the learned Judge has granted only Rs.10,000/- under the head loss of earnings, which in my considered view is very meagre. 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 Learned Judges or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Learned Judges 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.” Considering the circumstances of the case, an amount of Rs.3,500/- per month notionally can be taken as income of the claimant. It is claimed by the appellant that he sustained fracture of both bones of left fore arm, injuries to knees, head and other parts of the body. In support of his claim, he examined PW 2-doctor who issued disability certificate, which was marked as Ex.A-10. The learned Judge while discarding the evidence of PW 2 observed that PW 2 is not the doctor who treated the appellant. The fact remains that PW 2 is the doctor and nothing is elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. No contra evidence was produced by the respondents also. But, in the circumstances of the case, considering the certificate issued by the doctor after 1 ½ years of the accident, the disability sustained by the appellant can be safely taken at 20%. Thus, quantified on a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month and the disability at 20%, for the purpose of determining the compensation towards disability and thereby, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.8,400/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 28 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] is 17. Then, the compensation towards 20% disability comes to Rs.8,400 x 17=Rs.1,42,800/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medicines is awarded. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs.1,62,800/-. But since the appellant has claimed only Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation, his claim is restricted to Rs.1,50,000/- . Thus, the compensation awarded by learned Judge is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 30.12.2010 lvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 3226 OF 2005 Dated: 30.12.2010 [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129