HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.493 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 23.09.2005 passed in O.P.No.2121 of 2001 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The claimant is the appellant herein. The said O.P was filed by the claimant seeking compensation towards injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.09.2001 involving auto bearing registration No.AP 9AJ 5756. 3. Facts stated are:-on the fateful day, the claimant was going by walk to his residence and at that time, the TATA Indica car in question driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed the claimant due to the impact of the same, he fell down and received fracture of both bones of right leg, fracture of right femur, fracture of knee and injuries all over the body. He was shifted to the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and from there to APSRTC Hospital on the same day and from there to NIMS Hospital. That on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged 40 years and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as driver in APSRTC and that due to the accident, the claimant became disabled and not able to do his job as driver. Therefore, the claimant made a claim form Rs.10,00,000/- 4. To prove his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 besides other two witnesses as PW.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-16. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.X-1 and Ex.B-1 also were marked but none were examined. The Tribunal considering the evidence adduced on the question of culpability in causing the accident held that the driver of the accident car in question was responsible for the accident and accordingly as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- granted compensation of Rs.4,81,000/-. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel for the respondents/Insurance company. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. As regards the culpability in causing the accident, it has come in the evidence that on the fateful day, the accident car in question driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimant as a result of which he sustained injuries all over his body which is supported by Ex.A-1 certified copy of F.I.R contents, which establishes that the accident occurred in the manner explained by the claimant. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence adduced, the finding of the Tribunal fixing the culpability on the driver of the accident car in question does not warrants any interference. Coming to the question of adequacy or otherwise of compensation granted by the Tribunal, it has come in the evidence, as on date of the accident, the claimant was working as driver in APSRTC and used to get salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. The doctor who was examined as PW.2 and conducted operations on the claimant found the injuries as detailed in Ex.A-5, which is the discharge summary card and according to PW.2-doctor the claimant sustained compound grade-I double segmental fracture both bones right leg, communited fracture of the left femur middle 1/3rd, communited by condylar fracture with diaphyseal extension tibia with fracture neck of 5th metacarpal left hand with head injury. The evidence of the PW-3 who is also a doctor and who treated the claimant goes to show that the petitioner sustained un- united fracture right tibia lower third and united fracture shaft femur and leg fracture tibia of the upper one third and he has shortening of right leg by one inch. He has assessed the disability at 60%. Since no contrary evidence is adduced, the disability sustained by the claimant can be assessed at 60% by PW.3. As per Ex.A-9, salary certificate issued by APSRTC, the claimant was drawing net salary of Rs.3,500/- per month but the gross salary according to the claimant is Rs.6,000/- per month. The age of the claimant is 40 years and the appropriate multiplier applicable as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘15’. Considering the future prospects of the claimant had he been not met with the accident, his income on an average can be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month. The annual income of the claimant comes to Rs.54,000/- and 60% of the amount comes to Rs.32,400/- (54,000 x 60%). The appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ and when applied, the amount comes to Rs.4,86,000/- (32,400 x 15). The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,86,000/- towards 60% disability. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] 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’. 6. In addition to the amount granted towards disability, an amount of Rs.40,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering in view of the fact that the claimant suffered 60% disability and he has to put up with the discomfort throughout his remaining life, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards the medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards the expenses for medical attendant and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, totalling to Rs.5,56,000/-. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the claimant is granted total compensation of Rs.5,56,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. The impugned award passed by the Tribunal stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 10, 2011 NRG HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.493 of 2006 March 10, 2011 NRG [1] 2009 (6) scale 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261