HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 4580 of 2004 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: G. Vandana .. Appellant And 1. K. Vijaya Krishna Reddy 2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) challenging the order dated 29.07.2004 in O.P.No. 2400 of 2000 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The claimant filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 23.10.2000, at about 10.00 a.m., while she was going towards Gokaraju Gangaraju Engineering College, on a Kinetic Honda bearing No.AP 10K 996, a lorry bearing No. AP 25T 5153 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against her motor bicycle near Chinnatokatta Bridge, Bowenpally, as a result, she sustained injuries. In this connection, a case in Crime No.291 of 2000 was registered against the driver of the lorry. The claimant spent huge amount for her treatment including medicines. Hence, she filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited, filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the claimant. It is also averred that the 2nd respondent called upon the claimant to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the 1st respondent, and that the claimant is suffering from permanent disability, and the claim made by her is excessive. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent’s lorry? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom? In order to substantiate her case, the claimant got herself examined as PW1 besides examining the doctor, who treated her, as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 - policy was got marked, but no oral evidence is adduced. Taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 25T 5153 and granted compensation of Rs.36,700/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has contended that even though the appellant sustained fracture of Superior Remi of pelvis, underwent treatment in C.D.R. Hospital and suffered 20% disability in the accident, the Tribunal erred in granting less compensation, and prays to enhance the compensation. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent has contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same need not be interfered with, and prays to dismiss the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. 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 time 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.” From a careful analysis of the material on record, it is clear that the Tribunal, without applying multiplier method, granted compensation of Rs.36,700/- under various heads including disability as against the claim of Rs.80,000/-. The Tribunal further held that though it is stated that the claimant is working as Software Developer in G.V. Infotech and drawing Rs.3,000/- per month, it is nowhere mentioned in the petition as such. In fact, Ex.A10 – salary certificate issued by the Managing Director, V.G. Infotech and marked on behalf of the claimant, is not disputed. However, this Court, taking into consideration the fact that the claimant is working as Software Developer, and in view of the settled principle of law laid down in above referred judgment rendered by the Apex Court that the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal, this Court assesses the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2000/-. Therefore, the income of the claimant per annum is calculated at Rs.2000/- x 12 = Rs.24,000/-. Inasmuch as the age of the claimant at the time of the accident is 21, the appropriate multiplier is “18”. If the same is applied, the compensation can be quantified at Rs.4,32,000/-, however, the same is restricted to the claim made by the claimant i.e. Rs.80,000/- on all counts. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.80,000/-. However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is hereby scaled down to 7% p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization. With the above modification of the impugned award, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261