HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO. 2977 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.6.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 1790 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 13.06.2003 at about 9.30 p.m when the claimant was proceeding on foot from Maheshnagar huts towards bus stand to go to his village, one Hero Honda bearing No. AP 10N 8201 came in a rash and negligent matter with high speed and dashed to the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous fracture injuries and other multiple injuries all over the body. The first respondent owner of the Hero Honda bearing No. AP 10N 8201 remained ex parte and the second respondent-New India Assurance Company filed its counter denying all the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Hero Honda bearing No. AP 10N 8201 belonging to the first respondent, insured with the second respondent and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The Tribunal also taking into consideration of the evidence available on record, granted total compensation of Rs.45,575/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant contended that the Court below wrongly granted less compensation without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. He also submits that the learned Judge had failed in granting compensation based on the percentage of disability at 40% as assessed by PW-2 doctor and it also committed an error in granting only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards pain and suffering. He further contended that the judgment of the Court below suffers from various infirmities and it has not considered the matter in proper perspective. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the order of the Court below is quite reasonable and there is no need to interfere with the order with regard to quantum of compensation but as far as rate of interest is concerned, the same may be reduced. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, the accident occurred on 13.6.2003 at about 9.30 p.m due to rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda bearing No. AP 10N 8201 by its driver. Due to which the claimant sustained fracture injuries. PW-2, doctor deposed that there was 40% disability to the left leg of the claimant. The claimant claims to be a cook and earns Rs. 3,000/- per month. Ends of justice would be met if Rs. 2,500/- per month is taken as salary of the claimant and per annum it comes to Rs. 30,000/- (2,500x12=30,000). PW- 2 doctor assessed the disability at 40% but the claimant after a lapse of two years approached the doctor and obtained Ex. A-5 disability certificate. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if 30% disability is taken into consideration and after deducting the disability, the amount comes to Rs. 9000/- (30,000x30/100=9000). The claimant is aged about 45 years and the relevant multiplier is 14 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT. SARALA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] and if applied the relevant multiplier the amount comes to Rs. 1,26,000/- (9000x14=1,26,000). An amount of Rs. 17,000/- is granted towards medical expenses. Thus the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,43,000/- (1,26,000+17,000= 1,43,000). 7. 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 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 law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgment, and also taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case, this appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs. 45,575/- to Rs. 1,43,000/-. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 10.2.2010 KA [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261