HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MAC.M.A.No. 1006 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 31.12.2004 passed by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 696 of 2002 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 16.6.2001 at about 8.00 PM when he was talking to his friend having stopped his scooter bearing No. ATY 371 and at that time one DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP-28T-7046 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed him from behind and due to which, the claimant fell down and received serious fracture of right scapula, fracture of right hand, fracture of right elbow, fracture of left hand thumb and deep laceration over 1st web radial side, loss of skin on radial ½ of dorsum of right hand and other injuries on all over the body. Respondents 1, being owner of the DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP-28T- 7046 remained ex parte and the second respondent, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition including the accident injuries to the claimant. 2. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP 28T 7046, and taking into consideration the evidence of the claimant that he sustained fracture injuries and also taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, doctors who treated the claimant, assessed the disability at 25% awarded a total sum of Rs. 1,56,566/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Court below wrongly taken the age of the appellant on higher side and wrongly granted less compensation and it ought to have taken the loss of earnings of the appellant at 10% as he is unable to drive the vehicles as stated by the Medical Officers. He also submits that the court below failed to consider the enhancement petition filed by the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings for enhancing the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 9,00,000/- and closed the petition on the ground that the same can be considered at the time of delivering the judgment. 4. The claimant field MACMA MP No. 5243 of 2010 seeking to amend the claim petition in OP No. 696 of 2002 on the file of I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, by enhancing the compensation from 2,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- and the same is hereby ordered. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the order of the court below is quite correct and there are no grounds to interfere with the order. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 7. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM Toyota Van bearing No. AP 28T 7046 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. 4,000/- per month by working as driver. PW-2 doctor who treated the claimant deposed that the claimant sustained the following injuries: (i) multiple injuries to his right upper limb. (ii) Crush injury to his right hand with severe contamination and loss of skin on radial aspect of right hand dorsum. (iii) A fracture dislocation second mentacarpal bone with carpometacarpal bone dislocation. (iv) A deep laceration in the first web space, (v) Avulsion injury with loss of skin over the right elbow and proximal forearm region was noted.” He further deposed that the claimant operated on 18.6.2001 on general anesthesia , 2. Debridement of wound 3. Skeletal fixation of second matacarpal bone with K-wire, 4. Groil flap cover for the right hand dorsum, 5. split skin grafting to the raw area over the right elbow and the forearm. PW- 3, doctor also deposed that he conducted an operation and plastic surgery by doing debridement of the wound and he deposed almost all on the same lines as deposed by PW-2. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month as Driver, and as there is no certificate to that effect ends of justice would be met if Rs. 3,000/- per month taken as salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/- and out of that if deducted 50% disability, the amount comes to Rs. 18,000/- (36,000x50/100 = 18,000/-). As the age of the claimant is 56 years the relevant multiplier to the age group 56 years to 60 years is ’9’ as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], and if applied the correct multiplier, the amount comes to Rs. 1,62,000/- (18,000x9=1,62,000). An amount of Rs. 94,000 is granted towards medial expenses and Rs. 34,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 3,00,000/- (1,62,000 + 94,000 + 34,000 + 10,000). 8. 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 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.” 9. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, the amount of compensation granted by the Court below is enhanced from Rs. 1,56,566/- to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakh Rupees only) for the injuries sustained by the claimant. 10. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 23.12.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261