HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 2212 OF 2002 Between: Dondi Laxminarayna ..... PETITIONER AND Neralla Chandra Kumar and two others .....RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award made by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Adilabad in O.P.No. 374 of 1995 dated 3.10.1997, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 50,000/- only together with 15% interest per annum. Brief facts of the case as born out from the record are as follows: On 1.4.1994 while the appellant was returning with other three friends after completing business at Adilabad in a Maruthi Car bearing No. AP-23-A-678 and when they reached Nelkivenkatapur Village of Luxettipet Mandal at about 17.30 hours, a lorry bearing No. AP-31- U-1447 coming in opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Maruthi Car resulting which grievous injuries to the occupants of the Maruthi Car including the appellant. The first respondent-driver of the lorry stopped the lorry and fled away from the spot. On a complaint, Police Dandepalli registered a case in Crime No. 34 of 1994 under Sections 337, 338 and 427 of IPC against the first respondent and sent the petitioner and others to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar for treatment and the duty medical officer on seeing the seriousness of the injures referred all the injured to Osmania Government Hospital, Hyderabad. The appellant sustained injuries on right eyebrow with fracture of left side ribs 4,5,6 and 7 and grievous injury to head with swelling of brain. After discharge from the hospital the appellant took treatment for six months and he incurred Rs. 20,000/- towards medical treatment. The appellant suffered much loss of business apart from pain and suffering mentally and physically. Hence, claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The first respondent-driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-31-U-1447 remained ex parte. Respondents 2 and 3 owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company respectively filed counter contending that the accident occurred due own negligence of Maruthi Car driver and there is contributory negligence. Both the drivers were not having driving licenses as such respondents are not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the claim of the appellant is excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 1.4.1994 near Nelki Venkatapur, due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 31-U-1447 by its driver? 2. Whether he petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the appellant, the appellant himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs A1 to A5. On behalf of contesting respondents, no witness were examined and no documents were marked. With regard to issue No. 1, the driver held that the appellant has established that the accident had occurred on 1.4.1994 at Nelki Venkatapur Village due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and with regard to issue No. 2, taking into consideration of Ex. A2 certified copy of the injury certificate, which shows that the petitioner sustained irregular laceration of right eye and lacerated wound on right knee and also taking into consideration of Ex. A5 which shows head injury and fracture of ribs granted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation with interest at 15% per annum payable by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said compensation, the appellant filed the present CMA seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the appellant spent about Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses, traveling and miscellaneous charges but the Tribunal erred in awarding very meager lump-sum amount without specifying under what head it was awarded. He further contended that the driver ought to have seen that the appellant received grievous injuries viz., head injury, lacerated of right eye and facture of ribs 4,5,6 and other minor injuries. 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 1.4.1994 and on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver the appellant sustained head injury, laceration of right eye and fracture of ribs 4,5, and 6 and Ex. A2 discloses that the appellant sustained laceration of right eye and laceration of right knee and Ex.A5 shows with regard to head injury and fracture of ribs. 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. 50,000/- to Rs. 75,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 15% is on high side and requested that the same may be reduced. I see some force in this contention. Taking into consideration of Supreme Court judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 15% 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:01.07.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies. [1] AIR 2003 SC 607 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261