HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 1557 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2004 passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1180 of 2002 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.3.2002 when the claimant and one Mr. Gopal returning to Hyderabad form Vikarabad on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 25B 728, it dashed against the lorry bearing No. KA 01 3952, from behind, which was stopped on the road without parking lights. Due to which the claimant received fracture injuries to his head, injuries on hands, injuries on legs. First respondent owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the second respondent-Insurance company filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to parking of the lorry without parking lights and without taking any safeguards, viz., lorry bearing No. KA-01-3952 of the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, and due to which, the rider of the motor cycle Mr. Gopal died on the spot and the claimant sustained grievous injuries 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. 3,75,840/-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 wrongly taken the earnings of the claimant on lower side and wrongly granted less compensation and it granted less compensation towards pain and suffering. He also submits that the Court below ought to have taken the loss of earnings at 100% as the claimant is suffering from paralysis and thus the order under appeal is liable to be set aside and the amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for 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 19.3.2002 when the claimant and one Mr. Gopal returning to Hyderabad from Vikarabad on Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 25B 728, it dashed against the lorry bearing No. KA 01 3952, from behind, which was stopped on the road without parking lights. Due to which the claimant received fracture injuries all over his body. PW-2, who admitted that the claimant was admitted in CDR Hospitals on 20.3.2002 with the injuries of Haemetoma of left frontal, temporal of head and upper part of left face and bruises over left foot near big toe and after investigation it was diagnosed as post traumatic right MCA territory infract, and left temporal confusion. He stated that the claimant got left side body weakness and finds difficulty in walking and also speaking and he assessed the disability at 80%. Though it is stated that the claimant was earning Rs. 4000/- per month by working as Labourer, the Tribunal taken his income at 1200/- per month only. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,000/- per month is taken as the salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/- and out of that 80% disability if deducted the amount comes to Rs. 19,200/- (24,000x80/100=24,000). As the age of the claimant is 21 years, the relevant multiplier is 18, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the total amount comes to Rs. 3,45,600/- (19,200 x 18 = 3,45,600). An amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- is granted towards medical expenses and Rs. 15,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,10,600/- (3,45,600+1,50,000+15,000= 5,10,600). As the amount claimed is only Rs. 5,00,000/- the amount now granted is restricted to Rs. 5,00,000/-. 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 facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 3,75,840/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- and the rate of interest 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