HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM OHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 1382 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2004 passed by the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1161 of 2002 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 18.12.2001 at about 3.00 PM when the claimant was driving his trolley towards Kondapur to Madhapur Hundai Accent, a car bearing registration No. AP 31 R1 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver dashed against the auto trolley of the claimant and due to which, the claimant suffered fracture of his femur and other injuries all over his body. The first respondent owner of the car bearing registration No. AP 31- R1 remained ex-parte and R2 insurer-New India Assurance Company Limited, filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No. AP 31-R1 by its driver belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 50,500/-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 contended that the Court below wrongly taken the earnings of the claimant on lower side and granted less compensation. He also submits that the court below failed to discuss about the evidence of the doctor-PW-2 and failed to take into consideration the disability certificate Ex. A- 10 and filed to grant compensation towards loss of future earnings by adopting multiplier method. He also submits that the learned Judge failed to award the amount as claimed inspite of the evidence on record and therefore amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order with regard to quantum of compensation 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 18.12.2001 at about 3.00 PM when the claimant was driving his trolley towards Kondapur to Madhapur, a car (Hundai Accent), bearing registration No. AP 31 R1 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner driven by its driver dashed against the auto trolley of the claimant and due to which, the claimant suffered fracture of his femur and other injuries all over his body. PW-2, Assistant Professor in Orthopedic Surgery, who examined the claimant and issued certificate to the effect that the claimant suffered 40% disability. The Court below taken the income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per annum only therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,000/- per month is taken his earnings and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/-. Out of that if deducted 40% disability, the amount come to Rs. 9,600/- and the relevant multiplier for the age of 22 years is 18 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANTOEHR[1] and if applied the correct multiplied, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,72,800/- (9,600x18=1,72,800). The other heads granted by the Court below viz., an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 1,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 1,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 7,500/- towards loss of earnings for six months shall not be disturbed and the same shall be remained as it is. Thus the Total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,23,300/- (1,72,800 + 25,000 + 1,000 + 15,000 + 1,000 + 1,000+ 7,500 = 2,23,300). 7. 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.” 8. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 50,500/- to Rs. 2,23,300/- and reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 17.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261