HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :1630 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak, in O.P. No. 398 of 1996, dated 15.3.2001, the appellants filed the present appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellants are the legal representatives of the 1st appellant-the deceased-claimant. Originally, the 1st appellant-deceased filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 24.3.1994, while he boarded the R.T.C. bus at Koheer Village to go to Zaheerabad and when the bus reached near Huggeli Village bus stop on National Highway No.9, at 8.00 A.M., a lorry bearing No. ATT 586 being driven in a rash and negligent manner hit a tree and then hit the rear side of the bus. As a result of which, the bus pushed ahead and hit a tree and due to the said impact, the 1st appellant and some other passengers have sustained injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Gandhi Hospital and he took treatment there as in patient for a period of ten days. He was aged about 55 years as on the date of the accident and used to work as a barber, besides doing agricultural work. According to the 1st appellant, he sustained inter condylas fracture of right tibia and by virtue of the said injury, he was unable to do any work. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned O.P. before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- together with interest at 18% per annum and costs. However, he died during the pendency of the O.P. and the appellants 2 to 4, who are his legal representatives were brought on record pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal dated 21.2.2000 in I.A. No. 2324 of 1999. While resisting the claim of the appellants, the 1st respondent-owner of the lorry filed counter stating that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the R.T.C. Bus and there is no fault on the part of its driver. He further stated that the lorry is validly insured with the 2nd respondent-insurer and as such, he is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. The 2nd respondent-insurance company also filed a counter affidavit before the Tribunal stating that the accident did not occur on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, but it occurred solely due to the fault of the bus driver. It further contended there is no valid insurance policy. It also disputed the age, earnings and the nature of the injuries of the 1st appellant-claimant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial . 1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred on 24.3.1994 due to the rash and negligent driving of he driver of lorry ATT 586 or due to the rash driving of the driver of APASRTC bus No. 9545 or by both and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident ? 2. Whether the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? 3. Whether the lorry ATT 586 was insured with Respondent No.2 at the time of accident? 4. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, at what quantum and from whom ? 5. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. While assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal while taking into consideration the nature of the injuries sustained by the 1st appellant, awarded an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this appeal is filed by the Appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the 1st appellant was working as a barber at the time of accident and was earning about Rs. 1500/- per month and on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question, he could not work as barber. He further stated that on account of the injuries sustained by him, the 1st appellant died during the pendency of the O.P. itself and inspite of this, the Tribunal has granted a very meagre amount of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation. He, therefore submits that the compensation amount needs to be enhanced. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company would contend that the appellants did not file any evidence to show that they incurred an expenditure of Rs. 25,000/-. He further stated that the 1st appellant died naturally and he did not die on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. In the circumstances, the impugned award needs no interference. There is no dispute about the fact that the accident in question occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. There is also no dispute about the fact that the 1st appellant was injured in the accident in question. The only dispute is with regard to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Even though the appellants pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased had incurred an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses, but the Tribunal disbelieved the same on the ground that the appellants failed to file any evidence to show that they incurred such an expenditure. However, while taking into consideration the fact that the deceased sustained only simple injuries, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as compensation. Further, the Tribunal observed in the impugned order that as the appellant-deceased had undergone treatment in Government Hospital, Zaheerabad and subsequently in Gandhi Hospital, Secuderabad, which are the Government hospitals, he would not have incurred any expenditure towards medical treatment. It may be true, that those two hospitals are government hospitals. But, taking into consideration the age of the deceased, I am of the opinion that definitely, the appellant- deceased would have suffered on account of the accident in question, be it physical, mental or loss of earnings. Further, the 1st appellant also died during the pendency of the O.P. itself and taking all these facts into consideration, the Tribunal ought to have awarded some reasonable amount towards compensation. Further, the Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] has held that the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal. It may be necessary to extract the relevant portion, which reads thus: “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.” Therefore, while following the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court, I deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J Date: 15.7.2010 pnb [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261