HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 3709 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award made by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No. 1831 of 2001 dated 27.01.2003, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,85,000/- only together with 9% interest per annum. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.7.2001 while the appellant was proceedings on his Scooter from his office towards his residence, one DCM bearing No. AP 9W 2137 came in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side and dashed against the scooter of the appellant at VST Union Office, VST cross roads. As a result of which, the appellant fell down and received grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and thereafter to Vijaya Health Centre, where he was treated as in- patient and due to injuries he sustained permanent disability. Hence, he laid a claim seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest. The first respondent-owner of the crime Vehicle filed a counter denying all the material averments of the case and the second respondent-New India Assurance Company Limited also field its counter denying all the averments including the fact of occurring of accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 10.7.2001 at about 9.20 pm due to rash and negligent driving of DCM Van bearing No. AP9 W 2137 by its driver. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief. On behalf of the appellant, the appellant himself was examined as PW-1 and examined one Doctor as PW-2 and Exs. A1 to A14 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced but Ex. B1 was marked. With regard to issue No. 1, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW-1 that the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and with regard to issue No. 2 held that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries resulting in 40% disability as certified by PW-2 and granted an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of earnings totaling Rs. 50,000/- towards non- pecuniary damages, and Rs. 1,35,000/- towards pecuniary damages (60,000 + 20,000 + 13000 + 15,000 + 2,000 + 25,000) totaling Rs. 1,85,000/- (1,35,000+ 50,000) with interest at 15% per annum Aggrieved by the said compensation, the appellant filed the present CMA seeking enhancement of compensation. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred on 10.7.2001on account of rash and negligent driving of the DCM bearing No. AP 9W 2137 by its driver. As per the evidence of PW-2-Doctor, the claimant sustained closed head injury and laceration of right pinna, fracture of lateral tibial condyle internal deaderangement of right knee, laceration injury of (L) parietal accipital area, 2”x/2x1/4”, Abrasion over naphe of neck and the laceration of scalp is sutured and right pinna is repaired by plastic surgeon. The doctor assessed the disability at 40%. The tribunal granted the compensation by dividing it into two separate heads viz., pecuniary and non pecuniary. As the claim of the claimant is only 2,00,000/- and the Tribunal granted only 1,85,000/- the balance of Rs. 15,000/- is very meager when compared to the injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, in my considered view the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meager. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [1] [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 emphasize 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.” Following the above judgment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,85,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% is on high side and requested that the same may be reduced. Taking into consideration of Supreme Court judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation amount. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.07.2010 KA [1] AIR 2003 SC 607 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261