IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1012 of 2003 Between: Amara Rama Mohanarao ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation rep. by its General Manager .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1012 of 2003 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 04.02.2002 passed in M.V.O.P.No.342 of 1998 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, awarding a sum of Rs.81,240/- towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit, for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 17.04.1998, the claimant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Appellant herein is the claimant and respondent-Corporation is the owner of the bus involved in the accident. The facts, in brief, are that on 17.04.1998, at about 5.30 p.m., while the claimant, who was aged about 12 years and was studying 7th class at the time of accident, was on the road side margin near Layola Public School, Vinukonda, the driver of the bus bearing No.AP-9Z-6231 coming in a rash and negligent manner hit him resulting severe injuries including fracture of right leg and crush injury. Immediately the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Vinukonda, and later to Government General Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment. In the counter filed by the respondent-Corporation the claimant was put to strict proof of the averments made in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of RTC bus bearing No.AP-9Z-6231? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and, if so, to what amount? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent-Corporation. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.81,240/- towards compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not proper and just and, if so, to what compensation is the claimant entitled? I have carefully gone through the impugned award, passed by the Tribunal. It is observed that the claimant claimed Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal, having elaborately dealt with all the aspects, including the age of the claimant, the nature and number of injuries suffered by him, and the duration of treatment, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,240/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of studies and Rs.45,000/- towards loss of earning power and permanent disability, making a total compensation of Rs.81,240/-. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] observed 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.” From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Tribunal, keeping in view the permanent disability which was assessed to be 35%, granted Rs.45,000/- towards compensation for the loss of earning power. In view of the observations of the Tribunal that it is visible even to the naked eye that there was a skin grafting to his right leg; the leg could not be stretched properly due to skin grafting; there is a shortening of leg; and there are no movements in the ankle; I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to more compensation under that head than that was awarded by the Tribunal. For determination of compensation payable towards loss of earning power, I take the notional income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/- per annum. As stated supra, the permanent disability of the claimant was assessed to be 35%. Since this is a case of injuries, the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Therefore, the amount payable towards loss of earning power and permanent disability comes to Rs.15,000/- x 35% x 18 = Rs.94,500/-. I am not inclined to disturb the amounts granted under the other heads and the same shall remain unaltered. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,240/- towards medical expenses + Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.10,000/- towards loss of studies + Rs.94,500/- towards loss of earning power and permanent disability, making a total compensation of Rs.1,30,740/-. However, the rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at the rate of 7% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.1,30,740/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.81,240/-, granted by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till the date of realization and on Rs.49,500/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of this order till realization. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1261