HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :1615 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge,Guntur in O.P. No. 481 of 1998 , dated 12.4.2002, the appellant-injured claimant filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: According to the appellant, on 11.5.1997 at about 7.00 P.m., while he was on duty as cleaner of lorry bearing No. AP 7U 1107, the driver of the said lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner near Satuluru, as a result of which, he received injuries, including fracture of left leg. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet and for better treatment, he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he underwent treatment for about eight months. Besides this, skin grafting was also done. Even though he spent huge amounts for treatment, he could not become normal and he sustained permanent disability. Hence, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by him. The 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry and the 2nd respondent is the insurer. While resisting the claim of the appellant, the 2nd respondent insurance company filed a counter affidavit. The 1st respondent adopted the counter of the 2nd respondent. In its counter, the 2nd respondent has stated that it had no information about the accident and that no claim was also made before it with respect to the accident in question. Hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation amount. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 7U 1107 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ? On behalf of the appellant, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A5. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, by its driver. However, while disbelieving the claim of the appellant that he sustained 30% disability, it awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and erroneously granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation. He further contended that though the appellant sustained 30% disability, the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards loss of earnings. Hence the compensation granted by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that when the appellant failed to adduce any evidence to show that he has undertaken treatment in Government General Hospital, Guntur, for a period of eight months, the Tribunal rightly disbelieved his claim and there are no grounds to enhance the compensation amount. So far as the allegation with regard to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry is concerned, the same remains unchallenged. The only question, which needs to be considered is whether the appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of compensation over and above Rs. 20,000/- ? There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant sustained injury to his left ankle in the accident. However, the only dispute is with regard to the nature of the injury sustained by him. According to Ex.A3, wound Certificate, the appellant sustained a crush injury; whereas under Ex.A4 which was issued by doctor, M. Ramamohana Rao, the doctor opined that the appellant sustained injury to his left ankle, for which, skin grafting was also done and as a result of the said injury, there is loss of physical function to an extent of 30% and the said injury is not healed. Admittedly, when Ex.A4 was issued by a competent doctor, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the same. Further, the Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] has held that the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal. It may be necessary to extract the relevant portion, which reads thus: “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.” Taking into consideration, the young age of the appellant and while following the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, I deem it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant-claimant is awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date: 15.7.2010 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129