HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 1563 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge Medak at Sanga Reddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 14 of 1999 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 3,50,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.7.1998 at about 3.30 PM when the claimant returning on his Suzuki Motor Cycle from the Mess at about 3.30 PM, a lorry bearing No. AHB 9099 came in high speed from Ramachandrapuram in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant and due to which he sustained composite fracture of right leg, mandible and lost teeth. First respondent owner of the lorry set expate and the second respondent insurer of the same, filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AHB 9099 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, and due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 1,44,000/-with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Court below ought to have noted that the appellant had sustained head injury, fracture of jaw, multiple fracture of right leg, crush injury on thigh and that he was treated as inpatient for 1 ½ month in NIMS underwent operation and skin grafting was done resulting in huge expenditure for treatment, transport, nourishment etc. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order but as far as rate of interest is concerned, the same may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. It is evident from the record that the accident occurred on 30.7.1998 at about 3.30 PM when the claimant returning on his Suzuki Motor Cycle from the Mess at about 3.30 PM, a lorry bearing No. AHB 9099 came in high speed from Ramachandrapuram in a rash and negligent manner hit the claimant and due to which, he sustained composite fracture of right leg and lost teeth. PW-2 doctor basing on the treatment taken in the NIMS Hospital, and on radiological examination, found one malunited fracture of right femur and there is shortening about 5 cms of right lower limb and that thee is deformity of right thigh and limping gait and he estimated the disability at 45% as permanent and partial in nature. 7. As the claimant is earning Rs. 2,000/- per month as assistant to father, who is owner of construction company, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- per month is taken as his income and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- and out of that 40% disability if deducted, the total amount comes to Rs. 12,000/- (30,000x40/100=12,000). The age of the claimant is 40 years the appropriate multiplier is 15 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] and if applied the correct multiplier, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,80,000/- (12,000 x 15 = 1,80,000). An amount of Rs. 40,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,20,000/- (1,80,000 + 40,000 = 2,20,000). 8. 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.” 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,44,000/- to Rs. 2,20,000/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261