HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No. 973 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 2553 of 2001 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 31.10.2001 at about 2.00 PM, when he was traveling along with others in the auto bearing No. AP 10U 4796 and they were proceeding from Kepal to Secunderabad, the DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP 9U 1134 driven by its driver with high speed dashed the auto from behind. Due to which, the claimant received fracture of left leg, fracture of left caller bone, injuries on neck, stomach, legs and injuries on all over the body. Respondents 1, being owner of the DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP-9U-1134 remained ex parte 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 DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP 9U 1134, and taking into consideration the evidence of the claimant that he sustained fracture injuries and also taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, doctors who treated the claimant, assessed the disability at 40% awarded a total sum of Rs. 31,681/- 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 Court below wrongly granted less compensation towards medical expenses, transportation, pain suffering and it failed to grant compensation under multiplier method 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the order of the court below is quite correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the order. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP 9U 1134 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 he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing welding work. PW-2 doctor who treated the claimant deposed that the claimant is having three year old un-united fracture of left clavical and there was a malunited fracture left femur, middle to lower third with shortening of 1 ½ inches and he assessed the disability of 45% which is permanent partial on the basis of Mac Bridge Scale and the claimant cannot carry out his profession as welder. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts that the injured was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month as Welder,and as there is no certificate to that effect ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- per month is taken as salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- and out of that if deducted 40% disability the amount comes to Rs. 12,000/- ( 30,000 x 40/100 = 12,000/-). As the age of the claimant is 23 years the relevant multiplier to the age group 21 years to 25 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. 2,16,000/- (12,000x18=2,16,000). As the amount claimed is only Rs. 1,00,000/- the amount now granted is restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. 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.” 8. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) is granted to the claimant as compensation. 9. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part and the rate of interest granted by the Court below is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. 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