THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 3065 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the common award made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge) Guntur in OP No. 81 of 1997 dated 3.3.2000 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 45,000/- only together with 12% interest per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case as born out from the record are as follows: On 21.3.1997 at about 7 AM while the petitioner and others were returning from Tirumala to Remedicharla, in a Jeep bearing No. AP 70 3838, driver of the Jeep drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed hit the lorry going in the same direction from behind. The petitioner and others received injuries and jeep was also extensively damaged. A report was given to police and a case was registered against the driver of the jeep. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Kavali and later shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur. He claimed that he is an agriculturist with an income of Rs. 25,000/- per annum and because of injuries he became disabled and hence, claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 3. The first respondent in OP remained ex parte and the second respondent filed a counter denying the petition allegations. It is pleaded that there was no rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and the petitioner was passenger in the jeep and Rule 252 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits carrying of passengers and thus violated the policy conditions and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep No. AP 7 U 3838 and Lorry bearing No. AAK 2495 by its drivers or not? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount? (iii) To what relief? 5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of respondents RW-1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked. 6. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence available on record as far as the issue No. 1 is concerned viz., with regard to rash and negligent driving and with regard to violation of policy conditions, following the judgment of the Supreme Court B.V. NAGA RAJU VS. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY[1], wherein the Apex Court held that mere more number of persons carried in the vehicle than permitted in terms of the insurance policy is not so fundamental a breach, so as to afford ground to the insurer to repudiate liability altogether. Therefore, the Insurance Company –R2 cannot repudiate the claim on the ground that there is violation of policy condition. With regard to the second issue, the Tribunal held that the claimant suffered fracture of right femur and a steel rod was fixed and for removal of which, another operation is required and there is a slight shortening of leg and restriction of hip and knee movements resulting in partial permanent disability of 16 to 25%. PW-4 Dr. Lakshmana Swamy, Orthopaedician was examined to prove the injuries. Considering the nature of injuries and the disability that was caused, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 25,000/- for the disability suffered and Rs. 15,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- for medical expenses totalling Rs. 45,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the material made available on record. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and it erred in awarding the compensation only Rs. 15,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’ and the Tribunal below ought to have assessed the compensation by applying the multiplier method and the compensation awarded for medical expenses at Rs. 5,000/- is too low. 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the appellant suffered fracture of right femur and obtained treatment and a steel rod was fixed and for removal of which, another operation is required and there is slight shortening of leg and restriction of hip and knee movements resulting in partial permanent disability of 16 to 25%. It is also no doubt true that PW-4, Dr. Laxmana Swamy, Orthopaedician was examined to prove the injuries, therefore, in my considered view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is meagre. The Supreme Court 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.” 10. Following the above judgment, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal towards disability is enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- to 50,000/- and for loss of amenities the Tribunal has not awarded any amount. Hence, in my view it would be just and proper that he should be awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of amenities in addition to the amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses, already granted by the Tribunal. Thus in all the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- (50,000/- + 25,000/-). 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Insurance Company submitted that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 12% is on high side and requested that the same may be reduced. 12. 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 9% per annum is reduced to 6% per annum. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.06.2010 KA [1] 1996 ACJ 1178 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261