THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.2573 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 02.06.2005 in M.V.O.P No.469 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa. The claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant is the appellant herein who filed O.P before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 24.11.2002. On that day, the claimant boarded an auto bearing No.AP 04 U 3224 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent and driven by the first respondent. By the time the auto reached near Reddy hotel at Chinna Chowk, Cuddapah, the first respondent had driven it rashly and negligently and could not control the auto and therefore, it turned turtle resulting several severe injuries to the claimant and other passengers in the auto. The claimant sustained fracture of two ribs and his left leg was amputated. Prior to the accident, the claimant was working as Helper in Ramakrishna Chemicals and was drawing Rs.4,268/- per month towards salary which he had lost on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. According to the claimant, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent who is driver of the auto. The first and second respondents remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The third respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter-affidavit before the Tribunal denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the appropriate issues. On behalf of the claimant, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7 – certified copies of F.I.R, wound certificate, charge sheet, medical bills, salary certificate, disability certificate and discharge summary. On behalf of the insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 and B2 – policy and permanent certificate were marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and that due to the accident the claimant received grievous injuries, which resulted in amputation of left leg and fracture of two ribs and therefore, the claimant is entitled to receive compensation. The Tribunal awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest at 9% p.a., from the date of claim petition till realisation. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal disbelieved the version of the appellant that he was working as Helper in Ramakrishna Chemicals and was drawing Rs.4,268/- per month and that since the appellant suffered amputation of left leg and fracture of two ribs and incurred huge expenditure for treatment, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount claimed by him. The learned counsel for the third respondent – Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. 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 Learned Judges or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Learned Judges 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.” Keeping in view the decision referred to above, since the claimant was working as Helper at the time of accident, he would have been earning at least a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month and accordingly his annual income comes to Rs.24,000/-. As per the disability certificate dated 16.07.2004 issued by Orthopaedical Surgeon, District Medical Board, which was certified by the Board Member and Chairman, District Medical Board, District Headquarters Hospital, Cuddapah, shows that the claimant suffered 65% disability. Therefore, his loss of earnings comes to Rs.15,600/- (65% of Rs.24,000/-). Since the claimant was aged 50 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’ as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2]. Accordingly, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.2,02,800/- (15600 X 13). Apart from the above, the claimant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, in all, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,22,800/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.2,22,800/-, which shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03rd February, 2011 GHN [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129