HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA NO. 846 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.8.2005 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for Trial of Jubilee Hills Car Bomb Blast case-cum- Additional Family Court-cum-XXIII Additional Judge, Red Hills, Nampally at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Court below’) in OP No. 1317 of 2002 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 5,50,000/- for the injuries-sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 31.08.2001 at about 3.00 PM when the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing No. KA 35F 139 from Hyderabad to Balki , a lorry bearing No. GJ 165-8970 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the bus, and due to which, the claimant fell down and received fracture injuries. The first respondent owner of the lorry bearing registration No. GJ 165 8970 remained ex-parte and the second respondent –New India Assurance 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. GJ 165 8970 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. 5,17,815/-with interest at 6% 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 erred in calculating the permanent disability of the claimant at 45% though the functional disability of the appellant is at 100% and it granted less compensation towards pain and suffering. 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 31.08.2001 at about 3.00 PM when the claimant was travelling in a bus bearing No. KA 35F 139 from Hyderabad to Balki , a lorry bearing No. GJ 165-8970 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the bus and due to which, the claimant fell down and received fracture injuries. PW-2, Orthopedic Surgeon who worked in CDR hospitals from 2001 to 2002 treated the claimant and he along with other doctors conducted a rare vascular operation and the operation took 8 to 10 hours for them and he assessed the disability at 45%. The claimant is selling the general items on push card and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month but the Court below taken Rs. 2,000/- per month and calculated the compensation. Hence, ends of justice would be met if earnings of the claimant is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/- and out of that 45% disability if deducted the amount comes to Rs. 16,200/- and the relevant multiplier for the age of 23 years is 18 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. 2,91,600/- (16,200x18=2,91,600). The claimant filed Ex. A5 to show that he incurred Rs. 2,20,110/- towards his medical expenses and the Court below granted the entire medical expenses. Hence, the amount of Rs. 2,20,110/- granted towards medical expenses and the amount of Rs. 25,000/- granted towards loss of prospects of marriage shall not be disturbed and both shall be remained as it is. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 5,36,710/- (2,91,600 + 2,20,110 + 25,000 = 5,36,710) 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 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.” 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. 5,17,815/- to Rs. 5,36,710/-. 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