IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3132 of 2005 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1613 of 2005 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1613 of 2005 Between: B. Laxman Kumar ..... APPELLANT(S) AND P. Hari Babu and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3132 of 2005 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1613 of 2005 and M.A.C.M.A.No.1613 of 2005 ORDER: Appellant filed claim petition in O.P.No.1093 of 2003 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 14.01.2003 at about 03.30 p.m., while he, along with his colleague, was going on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-R-3652 from Miyapur to Kukatpally, and when reached Vikas college, one DCM lorry bearing No.AP-9T-6015 came in high speed and in rash and negligent manner from Vikas campus in wrong route and dashed his motorcycle resulting injuries to them. Before the Tribunal, first respondent remained ex parte and second respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident that took place on 14.01.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of DCM lorry bearing No.AP-9T-6015? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? On behalf of appellants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. Though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of respondents, Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy was marked. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, awarded compensation of Rs.48,000/- to the appellant with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the present appeal is by the claimant. 2. The learned counsel for appellant vehemently contends that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding proper compensation. It is submitted that since the appellant is entitled to more compensation than what is claimed before the Tribunal, he filed an application for enhancement of compensation along with the present appeal. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contends that the Tribunal has granted compensation more than what the appellant is entitled to and there is no need to further enhance the same and so the appeal and the petition for enhancement are liable to be dismissed. 3. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ‘Just’ and, if not, to what compensation the appellant is entitled? 4. A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transportation to hospital; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1,000/- towards damage to clothes; Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings; Rs.10,000/- towards medicines & nursing charges; and Rs.10,000/- towards inconvenience, uneasiness & partial disability; making a total of Rs.48,000/-. 5. There is no dispute as to the occurrence of accident and appellant sustaining injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal disbelieved the disability certificate (Ex.A.6) dated 21.03.2004, which shows that the appellant suffered 20% disability, on the ground that the same was obtained one year after the filing of claim petition. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contends that the disability certificate (Ex.A.6) cannot be taken into consideration as the same is not supported by any oral evidence. I am not in agreement with the said contention. 6. Coming to the compensation aspect, the Supreme Court i n 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.” 7. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 coupled with Ex.A.7 salary certificate would go to show that the appellant was earning Rs.6,202/- per month as salary. However, after deductions, since the appellant gets Rs.5,689/- per month, which can be rounded off to Rs.5,700/- per month, the annual loss of future income would come to Rs.5,700/- x 20% x 12 = Rs.13,680/-. Since this is a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2], the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age of the appellant i.e. 26 years is ‘17’. So, the appellant is entitled to Rs.13,680/- x 17 = Rs.2,32,560/- towards loss of future income. 8. Except the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, I am not inclined to grant the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads. 9. Thus, the 1st appellant is entitled to Rs.2,32,560/- towards loss of future income + Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, totaling to Rs.2,42,560/- towards compensation in all. 10. In the claim petition the appellant claimed only Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation. The appellant filed M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3132 of 2005 along with the present appeal with a prayer to enhance the claim amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.3,74,000/-. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that since the claim is originally made for Rs.1,50,000/- and since the appellant failed to adduce additional evidence to support his request for enhancement of the claim amount, the compensation may be restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned counsel for the second respondent strongly opposed the said petition and sought time to file a counter in that petition. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that if the claimant is entitled to get more compensation that what is claimed, the Courts are not barred to grant the same and submits that they are ready and willing to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. In support of the said contention he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NAGAPPA vs. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS[3] wherein it was held that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant and that in an appropriate cases where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, it may pass such Award, but the only embargo is that it should be ‘Just’ compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. vs. MOHD. NASIR AND ANOTHER[4], and submits that since the Apex Court in NAGAPPA case (2 supra) held that for awarding just compensation, if required, in appropriate cases, the Court may permit amendment to the claim petition. In view thereof, since the learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is relying on the same set of facts and evidence to support his claim, the request of the learned counsel for the second respondent is not acceded to and, therefore, M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3132 of 2005 filed for enhancement of the claim amount is allowed. 11. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. 12. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.2,42,560/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondents with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization, however, subject to the appellant paying the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 19th August 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1261 [2] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104 [3] AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 674 [4] 2010 (1) ALD 74 (SC)