HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 1720 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.06.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 2701 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 24.11.2001 at about 5-00 A.M, when the claimant along with others was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP11 V 7345, near Crusher Machine, Agapally Village, Manchala Mandal, R.R. District, a lorry bearing registration No. AP12 U 2366 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto and due to which, the claimant received fracture injuries. The first respondent owner of the lorry bearing registration No. AP 12U 2366 remained ex-parte and second respondent- United India Insurance 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 lorry bearing registration No. AP 12 U 2366 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. 72,520/-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 grant compensation towards loss of amenities, towards medical expenses, towards transportation and extra nourishment. 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 24.11.2001 at about 5- 00 A.M, when the claimant along with others was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP11 V 7345, and when they reached near Crusher Machine, Agapally Village, Manchala Mandal, R.R. District, a lorry bearing registration No. AP12 U 2366 came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto and due to which, the claimant received fracture injuries. PW-2, Dr. S. Venkat Raman, Orthopedic Surgeon treated the claimant and issued medical certificate. Ex. A5 is the discharge ticket issued by the Osmania General Hospital, which shows that the claimant was admitted on 24.11.2001 and was discharged on 11.12.200. According to the evidence of PW-2, the claimant sustained 50% partial and permanent disability. The claimant deposed that he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month as labourer. But the Tribunal took the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 1200/- per month. Hence, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,000/- is taken as monthly income of the deceased and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/- and out of that 30% disability if deducted, the net amount comes to Rs. 7,200/- (24,000x30/100=7,200). As the age of the claimant is 50 years, the relevant multiplier is 13 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] and if applied the correct multiplied, the total amount comes to Rs. 93,600/- (7,200 x 13 = 93,600). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation awarded comes to Rs. 1,03,600/- (93,600+10,000=1,03,600). 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. 72,520/- to Rs. 1,03,600/- and reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 10.3.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261