THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4888 OF 2004 Dated: 18-11-2010 Between: K. Iylaiah ... APPELLANT AND Sri J. Suresh and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4888 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 23-08-2004 in O.P No. 2539 of 2002 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The claimant is the appellant. He filed the said O.P claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. He pleaded that he was working as an auto driver earning Rs.4,000/- per month and on 17-10-2002 at about 11.15 am, a lorry bearing No. AP 28T 7687 driven at a fast speed in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed his auto bearing No. AP 13V 6733 due to which he fell down and received crush injury to his right leg, head injury and other multiple injuries all over the body and that later his left leg was amputated and rods were inserted. 3. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. 4. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues as to whether the appellant sustained injuries in the motor accident that took place on 17-10-2002 due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry and whether the appellant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what relief he is entitled. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A- 14 were marked, his case sheet was marked as Ex.X-1 on consent and Ex.B-1 Insurance policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal answered the first and second issues in favour of the appellant and as regards the third issue, an amount of Rs.2,56,800/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.2,000/- per month as the earnings of the appellant which is on lower side and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. He further contended that though the doctor who was examined as PW 2 deposed that the appellant sustained 80% disability and issued Ex.A-11 disability certificate, the Tribunal has taken the disability as 60% only. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal has granted only Rs.2,000/- per month which in my considered view is very meagre. 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 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.” 8. In view of the above, I feel that an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards loss of earnings would meet the ends of justice. 9. Insofar as disability is concerned, the doctor who was examined as PW 2 issued Ex.A-11 disability certificate, wherein it was mentioned that the appellant sustained 80% disability, but in the cross examination he deposed that knee amputation of left lower limb carries about 60% disability. Further, even as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, under the relevant schedule, disability should be calculated at 60% for amputation. Therefore, the same is maintained. 10. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards loss of earnings which comes to Rs.36,000/- per annum, out of which 60% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.21,600/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 40 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] is 15. Then, the compensation towards 60% disability comes to Rs.21,600X15=Rs.3,24,000/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering is awarded. The award of the Tribunal in all other respects shall remain unaltered i.e., the appellant is entitled to the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, attendant charges, transport charges and extra nourishment. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs.3,54,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.2,56,000/- to Rs.3,54,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 11. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 18-11-2010 ks [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 96) SCALE 129