HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1454 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 24.2.2006 passed by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (Mahila Court) cum XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 2020 of 2003 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 14.10.2002 at about 3.40 PM when she along with her father and mother going to Narsaraopet from Hyderabad in an Ambassador Car bearing No. AP-9V-4919 and when the said car reached near Gudur Village near Sai Krishna Rice Mill, the driver of the said car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the vehicle and dashed the tree on the left side of the road, due to which, the claimant sustained serious injuries. Respondents 1, being owner of the Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 9V-4919 remained exparte 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 Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 9V- 4919, and taking into consideration the evidence of the claimant that she sustained fracture and became permanently disabled and she is under going treatment periodically and regular physiotherapy and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2 doctor who treated her and assessed the disability at 60% awarded a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the United India Insurance Company Limited preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company contended that the Court below failed to appreciate the fact that the injuries sustained by the claimant is simple in nature and there is no disability, however the court below erroneously granted a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- towards injuries and the claimant did not have any future loss of income due to the accident. 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 Ambassador Car bearing No. AP 9V 4919 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. She had taken treatment as inpatient from 14.10.2002 to 28.11.2002 and the doctors of Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital, conducted an operation on 21.10.2002 and ‘K’ wire fixation was done. Again the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 13.1.2003 and further operation was conducted on 15.1.2003 for the removal of GA “K” wire from lower 1/3rd of the right finger. PW-2, doctor also certified that she is suffering with supra condyloar fracture of right tumar with stickness suffering with 60% permanent physical disability. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was studying intermediate second year in Nalanda Educational Society, Vengalraonagar, Hyderabad and she was a bright student who was aspiring for her medical seat but due to accident she lost all her educational skills and she is bed ridden and thereby lost her academic carrer, became permanently disabled due to injuries and fractures sustained by her in the accident therefore, ends of justice would be met if her earnings can be assessed as Rs. 3,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/-. Out of that 60% disability if taken the amount comes to Rs. 21,600/- (36,000x60/100= 21,600) and as the age of the claimant is 19 years the relevant multiplier to the age group 15 years to 20 years is ’18’ 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. 3,88,800/- (21,600x18= 3,88,800). The injuries sustained by the claimant would affect her marriage prospects and studies and the medical expenses incurred by her and the pain and suffering, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded under the heads of ‘medical expenses, pain and suffering and marriage prospects and studies’. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 4,88,800/- (3,88,800/-+10,000= 4,88,800). 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 of compensation granted by the Court below is enhanced from Rs. 1,52,000/- to Rs. 4,88,800/- 8. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 18.11.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261