HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 670 OF 2007 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 VIII Additional District Judge -cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Godavari District, Rajahmundry (for short ‘the Tribunal ’) in OP No. 1116 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.5.2003 at about 9.30 AM when the claimant went to Annavaram with Banana load on cycle and while he was returning to his village, a lorry bearing No. AP 16W 9676 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimant from behind and due to which, wheels of the lorry ran over claimant’s right leg and he sustained grievous injury to his right leg and his right foot was crushed and sustained multiple injuries to left leg. The first respondent owner of the lorry bearing No. AP 16W 9676 remained ex-parte and the second respondent- New India Assurance Company Limited filed its counter 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 registration No. AP 16W 9676 by its driver belonging to the first respondent-owner, insured with the second respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 30,000/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 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 Court below ought to have granted compensation taking into consideration the partial and permanent disability at 22% and it ought to have granted future medical expenses. 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 25.5.2003 at about 9.30 AM, when the claimant went to Annavaram with Banana load on cycle and while he was returning to his village, a lorry bearing No. AP 16W 9676 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the claimant from behind and due to which, wheels of the lorry ran over claimant’s right leg and he sustained grievous injury to his right leg and his right foot was crushed and sustained multiple injuries to left leg. PW-2, is an eye witness to the accident. PW- 3 is the medical officer of Orthopeadic Department deposed that the patient was operated and the wound was covered by skin grafting and the patient developed stiffness to the right foot getting pain and swelling while walking or attending to his routine duties and the probable disability is 15% to 20%. As the claimant is selling seasonal fruits and also attending to coolie work during peak season and getting monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- per month, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,000/- per month is taken as his monthly income and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/- and out of that 20% disability if deducted, the net amount comes to Rs. 4,800/- and the relevant multiplier for the age about 40 years os 15 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR[1] and if applied the correct multiplied, the total amount comes to Rs. 72,000/- (4,800x15= 72,000). An amount of Rs. 11,000/- is granted towards medical bills and Rs. 5,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount comes to Rs. 88,000/- ( 72,000+ 11,000/-+5,000=Rs.88,000/-). 7. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[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 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 the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 88,000/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261