HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1386 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 18.02.2006 passed by the VI Additional District Judge (FTC), East Godavari at Rajahmundry in OP No. 296 of 2003 filed by the appellant- claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that occurred on 23.5.2002 at about 6.30 PM when she along with her son were proceeding on a motor bike from Peddapuram to Koduru and when they reached near the culvert at Jalluru Village, the Van bearing registration No. AP 27T 2992 driven by its driver- cum-owner in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motor bike and as a result of which, she sustained grievous injuries to both legs and multiple injuries all over her body. Respondents 1, being driver cum owner of the van bearing No. AP 27T 2992 remained exparte 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 Van, disbelieved the evidence of PW-2 and the certificates created by him viz., Exs. A4, A5, A6 and Exs. X1 and X2, and held that as per Ex. A2 wound certificate, the claimant received three grievous and two simple injuries and considering the same it awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards transport charges, Rs. 3,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 3,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenditure, Rs. 45,000/- towards grievous injuries, Rs. 3,000/- towards pain and suffering for two simple injuries and mental agony and also granted Rs. 4,500/- for the deprivation from rendering her services to her family for three months, totaling to Rs. 66,500/-with future interest thereon 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 contended that the Court below did not appreciate the injuries sustained and it failed to consider the evidence of PW-2 doctor who deposed that he conducted three surgeries and treated the claimant and certified that she has the disability up to 30% to 40%. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and also perused the entire material made available on record. 5. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the Van bearing No. AP 27T 2992 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 she used to earn Rs. 1200/- per month as a tailor. As per Ex.A2 wound certificate, three surgeries were conducted on her. Hence, taking into consideration the above facts, that the injured was earning Rs, 1,200/- per month as a tailor, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 3,000/- per month taken as earnings of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 36,000/-. For the deprivation from rendering her services to her family for three moths period the Court below granted Rs. 4,500/- for three months assessing the salary as Rs. 1200 per month , the same is enhanced from Rs. 4,500/- to 9,000/- for three months (3,000x3=9,000). For the three grievous injuries, the Court below granted Rs. 45,000/- and the same is enhanced to Rs. 90,000/-. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. The total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,19,000/- (Rs. 9,000/- + Rs. 90,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 10,000/-= Rs. 1,19,000/-) 6. The Supreme Court also 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 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.” 7. In the circumstances and also in view of the above judgment, the amount of compensation granted by the Court below is enhanced from 66,500/- to Rs. 1,19,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant and the rate of interest granted by it is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum on the enhanced compensation. 8. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 18.11.2010 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261