HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 3744 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 16.07.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 1351 of 2002 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries- sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.2.2003 at about 11.20 AM when the claimant along with others were proceedings on the Auto bearing No. AP 28 V 1535 from Patancheru towards Shankerpally, a Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 10H 3092 came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against another seven seater auto as well as the auto in which the claimant was travelling and due to which, the claimant sustained fractures all over his body. First respondent owner of the Tata Sumo and the second respondent insurer of the same, filed their counters denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 10H 3092 of the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, and due to which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs. 50,500/-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 main grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant is that the Tribunal deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses of the claimant ignoring the fact that 1/3rd deduction is allowed only in fatal cases but not in injury cases and therefore, the amount of compensation should be calculated without deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as far as the quantum of compensation is concerned the order of the Tribunal is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal 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 28.2.2003 at about 11.20 AM when the claimant along with others were proceedings on the Auto bearing No. AP 28 V 1535 from Patancheru towards Shankerpally, a Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 10H 3092 came in a rash and negligent manner dashed against another seven seater auto as well as the auto in which the claimant was travelling and due to which, the claimant sustained fractures all over his body. 7. Be that as it may, as the only grievance of the claimant is that the Tribunal below deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal and living expenses in an injury case, without going into the merits or otherwise of the matter, this appeal is liable to be allowed. It is stated that the claimant is working as labourer and getting Rs. 4,000/- per month therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- is taken as the income of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- and the disability of 30% if deducted the amount comes to Rs. 9,000/-. The age of the claimant is 40 years the appropriate multiplier is 15 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 multiplier, the total amount comes to Rs. 1,35,000/- (9,000 x 15 = 1,35,000). An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,45,000/- (1,35,000 + 15,000 = 1,45,000). 8. 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.” 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 50,500/- to Rs. 1,45,000/-. The rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261