HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 2710 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.08.2003 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 205 of 1999 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.2.1996 when the claimant was traveling in the lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 4532 as its cleaner, on the road leading from Hyderabad to Nagarjunasagar and when it reached Gungal Forest, the driver of the lorry drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the lorry turned turtle and the claimant fell down and sustained fracture to his left hand, spinal cord and his two legs paralyzed. First respondent owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the second respondent-Insurance company filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 28 T 4532 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 75,124/-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 age of the claimant on higher side and wrongly granted less compensation and it also wrongly taken the disability on lower side and wrongly granted less compensation and it ought to have taken the loss of earning capacity at 100% and the claimant suffering from paraplezia and total functional disability. He also submits that the learned Judge failed to award the amount as claimed inspite of the evidence on record and therefore, amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 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 16.2.1996 when the claimant was traveling in the lorry bearing No. AP 28 T 4532 as its cleaner on the road leading from Hyderabad to Nagarjunasagar and when it reached Gungal Forest, the driver of the lorry drove the same, in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the lorry turned turtle and the claimant fell down and sustained fractures. PW-2, Orthopedic surgeon, who asserted in his cross examination that he has seen the record of Osmania General Hospital and it found proved that the claimant sustained three siple injuries, abrasion on his left cheek and contusion of the front left side on the chest, and fracture to the left wrist and another fracture to spinal cord which are grievous in nature. Ex. A-8 disability certificate, which clearly shows that the disability of the claimant at 30%. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if 30% disability is taken as the disability sustained by the claimant. The claimant was working as cleaner of the lorry and was earning a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- but the Tribunal taken the income of the claimant at Rs. 1800/- per month. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- is taken as the income of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- and out of that 30% disability if deducted, the amount comes to Rs. 9,000/- and the relevant multiplier for the age of 25 years is 18 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court 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. 1,62,000/- (9,000 x 18 = 1,62,000). 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. 75,124/- to Rs. 1,62,000/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal 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