IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1218 of 2003 Between: Habib Ahmad alias Habib Hameed and another ..... APPELLANT(S) AND M.Muthyalu and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1218 of 2003 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 19.09.2002 passed in O.P.No.1815 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, awarding a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident that occurred on 26.10.1999, the claimant has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The facts, in brief, are that on 26.10.1999, at about 3.15 p.m., while the claimant, who was aged 4 years by the time of accident, was cross the road at Mahavir Apartment, Kind Kothi, Hyderabad, the car bearing No.AP-11-U-8851, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed him resulting fractures and grievous injuries to him. The 1st respondent though filed counter shifting the burden if any on the 2nd respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 26.10.99 at about 3.15 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP-11-U-8851 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- towards compensation to the claimant for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not proper and just and, if so, to what compensation is the claimant entitled? I have carefully gone through the impugned award, passed by the Tribunal. It is observed that the claimant though initially claimed Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation but, subsequently, got enhanced the same to Rs.3,00,00/-. The Tribunal, having elaborately dealt with all the aspects, including the age of the claimant, the nature and number of injuries suffered by him, and the duration of treatment, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,68,000/- towards medical treatment, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation, Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, and Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothing, making a total compensation of Rs.1,89,000/- . The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] observed 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.” From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the claimant claimed Rs.68,000/- towards the continuing or permanent disability. According to P.W.3, the permanent disability of the claimant is assessed to be 25%. Exs.X.2 is the Disability Certificate. The Tribunal did not consider the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.X.2 Disability Certificate in a proper perspective and denied to grant any amount towards continuing or permanent disability. So, for determination of compensation payable towards continuing or permanent disability, I take the notional income of the claimant as Rs.15,000/- per annum. As stated supra, the permanent disability of the claimant was assessed to be 25%. Since this is a case of injuries, the multiplier applicable is ‘18’. Therefore, the amount payable towards loss of earning power and permanent disability comes to Rs.15,000/- x 25% x 18 = Rs.67,500/-. I am not inclined to disturb the amounts granted under the other heads and the same shall remain unaltered. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.67,500/- towards continuing or permanent disability + Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.1,68,000/- towards medical treatment + Rs.3,000/- towards transportation + Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment + Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothing; making a total compensation of Rs.2,56,500/- . However, the rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at the rate of 7% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.2,56,500/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal and with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.1,89,000/-, granted by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till the date of realization and on Rs.67,500/-, enhanced by this Court, with interest at 7% per annum from the date of this order till realization. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1261