HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 3186 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.72005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (for short ‘the Tribunal ’) in OP No. 692 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.4.2003 at about 8.00 PM near Gajulapelluru Village, B.N. Khandriga Mandal, when the claimant and others were coming in the jeep bearing No. AP 03/V- 5058, a Tractor bearing No. T.N.22-Z-4077 came in the opposite direction and both the drivers of the above vehicles drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and collided each of them and caused the accident. Due to which, the claimant received grievous injuries. Respondents 1 and 4, owners of jeep and tractor respectively remained ex parte and the second respondent- National Insurance Company 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 both the vehicles viz., jeep and tractor, fixed the contributory or composite negligence between both the drivers of the vehicles. Since the jeep turned turtle, the negligence of the driver of the jeep was fixed at 70% where as the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor was fixed at 30% and awarded total amount of Rs. 12,000/- with interest at 7.5% 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 Tribunal erred in quantifying the compensation to the extent of Rs. 12,000/- as against Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed by the claimant for the injuries sustained by him and it ought to have granted the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed by the appellant towards compensation. He also submits that the Tribunal erred in distributing the liability at 70% on respondents 1 and 2 and 30% on respondents 3 and 4 and it ought to have fixed the total liability on respondents 1 and 2 and the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 03 V 5058 is solely responsible for the accident. 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 o n 25.4.2003 at about 8.00 PM near Gajulapelluru Village, B.N. Khandriga Mandal, when the claimant and others were coming in the jeep bearing No. AP 03/V-5058, a Tractor bearing No. T.N.22-Z-4077 came in the opposite direction and both the drivers of the above vehicles drove the vehicles in a rash and negligent manner and collided each of them and caused the accident and due to which, the claimant sustained injures. Therefore, taking into consideration the injury certificate Ex. A-21, which shows that the claimant has got multiple injuries numbering eight and there are no bony injuries and all the injuries simple in nature, granted Rs. 12,000/- as compensation on all counts. Hence, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 13,000/- is granted in addition to the amount already granted by the Tribunal. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. 12,000/- + Rs. 13,000 = Rs. 25,000/-) 7. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] 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 facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 7.5% 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] AIR 1992 SC 1261