HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 1364 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.12.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 1147 of 2001 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 05.05.2001 at about 12.30 p.m he boarded APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 7589 at Abids to go to Dilsukhnagar, and when the above bus reached Hanuman Temple, the driver of the bus driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and applied sudden breaks and due to which, the claimant was physically thrown out of the bus through front wind shield and violently landed on the road and became unconscious and sustained injuries. The respondent-Corporation filed counter affidavit denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing No. AP 9Z 7589 belonging to the respondent-Corporation and taking into consideration of the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs.57,000/- 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 Court below wrongly granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record properly. He also submits that the learned Judge had failed to take into consideration the future medical expenses as deposed by the doctor in his evidence. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and it has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Court below 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. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 5.5.2001 at about 12.30 p.m due to rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing No. AP 9Z 7589 by its driver. Due to which the claimant sustained fracture injuries. PW-2, doctor deposed that he conducted investigations of spine by MRI of the spine at CDR on 11.5.2001 after studying the X-ray taken in Yashoda Hospital and the MRI study revealed “wedge compression fracture of D12 with bone marrow edema” retrolisthesis of D12 segment of spine and impinging on the calls with significant compression and the patient advised admission and surgery. The doctor also deposed that the patient was operated on 17.5.2001 and during the surgery posterior stabilization with massmiami system fixed with implants. He was advised rest for three months and requires another surgery for the removal of implants which would cost around Rs. 50,000/- and needs rest for two months. 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 judgments, and also taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 25,000, towards fracture from Rs. 20,000/- to 30,000/-, towards pain and suffering, transportation and extra nourishment from Rs. 7,000/- to 20,000/- and under the head future medical expenses from Rs. 15,000/- to 30,000/- totaling to Rs. 1,05,000/- (25,000 + 30,000 + 30,000 + 20,000 ). 9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 57,000/- to Rs. 1,05,000/-. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the same is reduced from 9% per annum granted by the Tribunal to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 17.9.2010 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261