HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 55 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 17.09.2002 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1739 of 2000 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.1.2000 when the claimant was coming to Secunderabad from Shiridi along with her family members in Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 10M 1223, the driver of the Tata Sumo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and persons in the Tata Sumo especially claimant sustained grievous injuries. The first respondent, owner of the Tata Sumo remained ex parte and the second respondent insurer of the Tata Sumo 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 Tata Sumo bearing registration No. AP 10 M 1223 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 1,73,000/-with interest at 9% 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 Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the claimant used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month by running a tailoring and embroidery shop and it failed to appreciate that the claimant has sustained permanent disability to an extent of 80% and to prove the same, she examined the doctor who treated her and filed the disability certificate. 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 21.1.2000 when the claimant was coming to Secunderabad from Shiridi along with her family members in Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 10M 1223, the driver of the Tata Sumo drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and claimant sustained grievous injuries. PW-2, doctor deposed about the admission of the claimant into NIMS Hospital on 28.1.2000 with injuries and he also deposed about his issuance of Ex.C-15 disability certificate on 1.3.2002 assessing the disability at 80%. As the claimant used to earn Rs. 4,000/- per month by doing tailoring, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 3,000/- per month is taken as her income and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/-. Out of that 80% disability if deducted, the net amount comes to Rs. 28,800/- and the relevant multiplier for the age of 28 years is 17 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHEHR[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the total amount comes to Rs. 4,89,600/- (28,800 x 17 = 4,89,600). An amount of Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,14,600/- (4,89,600 + 25,000 = 5,14,600). 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 facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,73,000/- to Rs. 5,14,600/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261