HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 4891 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 141 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.11.2002 at about 10.30 PM when he was returning from function on a two wheeler bearing Registration No. AP 03 H 3399 belonging to the third respondent and when he reached the petrol bunk at Begumpet, a car bearing No. AP 10 N 7779 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the claimant and as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries and fractures. The first respondent herein owner of the car bearing registration No. 10 N 7779 and second and fourth respondents, insurer of the Car as well as TVS Victor Motor Cycle bearing registration No. AP 03 H 3399 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 10N 7779 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. 1,20,000/-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 contended that the Tribunal wrongly granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. He submits that the Tribunal below erred in not placing reliance on Ex. A-11 disability certificate issued by PW-2 doctor, who assessed the permanent disability at 25%. 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 no doubt true that the accident occurred on 23.11.2002 at about 10.30 PM when the claimant returning from function, a car being registration No. AP 10N 7779 dashed against the claimant and as a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant is the advocate practicing at Madanapalle. Hence, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 4,000/- per month is taken as his income and per annum it comes to Rs. 48,000/- (4,000x12=48,000/-). As PW-2, doctor who issued disability certificate Ex. A-11 and assessed the permanent disability of the claimant at 25%. Hence, out of that 25% disability, if deducted, the loss of earnings comes to Rs. 12,000/- (48,000x25/100= 12,000). The claimant is aged about 37 years and the relevant multiplier is ‘15’ 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 multiplier, the loss of earnings comes to Rs. 1,80,000/- (12,000x15=1,80,000). An amount of Rs. 39,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. Thus the Total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 2,19,000/- (1,80,000 + 39,000 = 2,19,000). 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. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 2,19,000/- and reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. 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