HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1726 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 4.11.2003 passed by the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OP No. 748 of 2000 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 4.1.2000 at about 12.30 PM when she along with herm family members were proceeding in Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No. MH 31Z 4985 from Nizamabad towards Hyderabad side and when they reached near Ramanthapur Village, Chegunta Mandal, Medak District the driver of the Tata Sumo Jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against a stone. As a result of which, the vehicle turned turtle and the claimant sustained grievous injures beside fractures. Respondents 1, being owner of the Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing No. MH 31Z 4985 and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition including the accident injuries to the claimant. 2. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo Vehicle bearing No. MH 31Z 4985, and taking into consideration the evidence of the claimant that she sustained fracture of both bones and also the evidence of PW-2, doctor who conducted an operation and K wiring was removed under GA on the same day, and assessed the disability at 10%, awarded a sum of Rs. 53,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of left forearm 1/3, swelling over distal radius and operation was performed by incurring medical expenses of more than Rs. 37,982/-. He also submits that the Tribunal erred in awarding only a sum of Rs. 3,000/- towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment transport charges and Rs. 3,000/- towards partial disability, when the appellant sustained 10% disability in the absence of any contra evidence. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo Jeep bearing No. MH 31Z 4985 from Nizamabad towards Hyderabad side, by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and she used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month as a Fashion Designer. PW-2 doctor who treated the claimant assessed the permanent disability at 10%. As per Ex. A-5 which is discharge summary issued by Vijaya Health Centre, the claimant sustained fracture of both bones . Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as a Fashion Designer, as there is no certificate to that effect ends of justice would be met if Rs. 3,000/- per month taken as salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/- and out of that if deducted 10% disability the amount comes to Rs. 3,600/- (36,000x10/100 = 3,600/-). As the age of the claimant is 40 years the relevant multiplier to the age group 36 years to 40 years is ’15’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 54,000/- (3,600x15=54,000). An amount of Rs. 30,000 is granted towards medial expenses and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 94,000/-. 6. The Supreme Court also 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.” 7. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, the amount granted by the Court below is enhanced from Rs. 53,000/- to Rs. 94,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 8. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 23.12.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261