HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 4546 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 26.07.2004 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Jude, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 2739 of 2002 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 14.10.2002 at about 11.30 a.m when he was proceeding from Narsapur in auto bearing No. AP 09W 5379 and at Kondapur cross roads the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and took the vehicle extreme left side and due to which the auto turned turtle. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures to his entire body. Respondent No. 1 being owner of the Auto bearing No. AP 09W 5379 remained ex parte and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition disputing that there are 11 persons in the crime auto at the time of the accident and thus the auto was over loaded and the same is in violation of policy conditions. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, and taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and also the documents marked as Exs A-1 to A-10, awarded a sum of Rs. 39,500/- towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted the entire claim amount and it failed to appreciate the evidence on record, with regard to the disability and loss of earnings in the profession and it ought to have awarded at least a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards transport charges. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 09 W 5379 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained serious injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he used to earn Rs. 3,000/- per month by working as Cook in Kerala Hotel. Due to non healing of fracture and head injury and multiple injuries, the movements of the claimant were restricted. PW-2, doctor who treated the claimant estimated the disability as 35% and the same is partial and permanent Therefore, taking into consideration of all the facts on record, as the injured was working as a Cook in a Kerala Hotel, his earnings can be taken as Rs. 2,000/- per month and per annum, it comes Rs. 24,000/- and the disability of 30% if deducted the amount comes to Rs. 7200/- (24,000x30/100) and the correct multiplier to the age of 26 years is 17 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], and if applied the total amount comes to Rs. 1,22,400/- (7,200x 17 = 1,22,400/-) 6. The Supreme Court also 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 emphasize 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.” 7. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment of the Supreme Court this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 39,500/- to 1,22,400/- and reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.11.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261