THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4544 OF 2004 Dated: 18-11-2010 Between: Mudigonda Rajalingam ... APPELLANT AND K. Anjaneyulu and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4544 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 24-06-2004 in O.P No. 2756 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The claimant is the appellant. He filed the said O.P claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. He pleaded that he was working as a mason earning Rs.4,500/- per month and on 03-12-2001 at about 10.30 am he and his wife were proceeding to Kavadiguda by walk and when they reached Islamia School, the driver of DCM AP 9U 7927 owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent drove it rashly and negligently, dashed against the appellant due to which he fell down and sustained injuries to his left femur, hip was dislocated and received other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient and an operation was also conducted. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues as to whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said DCM and whether the appellant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what relief he is entitled. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked and Ex.B-1 Insurance policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal answered the first and second issues in favour of the appellant and as regards the third issue, an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,000/- per month as the earnings of the appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the appellant, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.1,000/- per month which in my considered view is very meagre. The appellant being a mason granting an amount of Rs.1,000/- per month towards loss of earnings is meagre. The Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur vs. Rajasthan State Transport Corporation[1] 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.” In view of the above, I feel that an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month towards loss of earnings of the appellant would meet the ends of justice. Insofar as disability is concerned, the doctor who was examined as PW 2 deposed that the disability sustained by the appellant was 30% which was accepted by the trial Court. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards loss of earnings which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum, out of which 30% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.7,200/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 35 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] is 15. Then, the compensation towards 30% disability comes to Rs.7,200X15=Rs.1,08,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.12,000/- towards medicines is awarded. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs.1,40,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,01,000/- to Rs.1,40,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 18-11-2010 ks [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129