HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1291 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order dated 28.11.2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 552 of 2000 filed by the appellant- claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 17.8.2000 when he was traveling in the Jeep baring No. ATI 7485 along with some other persons, to go to his residence at Butchannapeta Village, the driver of the jeep drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and lost control when it reached near Tarimi Junction and it dashed against a Palmyrah tree and turned turtle. Due to which the claimant received grievous injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 being driver and owner of the jeep remained expare and the third respondent- National Insurance Company, being insurer filed its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep and also taking into consideration the evidence of PW-2, who is the medical officer attached to Government Hospital Vizianagaram, and who gave treatment to PW-1 in his evidence stated that the claimant suffered 15% partial permanent disability and there was dislocation of left hip joint and that the claimant sustained grievous injury, granted total compensation of Rs. 7,500/- under all heads. Being aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that as per the evidence of PW-2 and Ex. X1 the claimant has sustained 15% partial permanent disability and as such it ought to have allowed the petition as prayed for. He also contended that the learned Judge erred in holding that the disability is not proved by way of documentary evidence having accepted the evidence of PW-02 and Ex. X2 whch shows the dislocation of left hip joint. 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 Jeep bearing No. ATI 7485 by its driver, accident occurred and due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was hale and healthy before the accident. Due to the injuries the left leg of the claimant was operated and PW-2 who gave treatment to the claimant also stated that the claimant suffered 15% partial permanent disability. Claimant is the student of 19 years. As per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, income of the non-earning member can be taken as 15,000/- per annum. If the disability of 15% deducted from the amount of Rs. 15,000/- total disability comes to Rs. 2,250/- (15,000x15/100= 2250/-). and for the age of 19 years the appropriate multiplier is 18 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT. SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1]. Hence, if applied the correct multiplier, the loss of earnings comes to Rs. 40,500/- (2250 x 18 = 40,500). The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR VS. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] 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 emphasize 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. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the above decision, I am of the considered opinion that the amount granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 7,500/- to 40,500/-. 7. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the claimant is allowed. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date : 12.8.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261