HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.NO. 386 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 08.08.2005 passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, CCC at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in OP No. 1589 of 2003 filed by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs. 80,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 14.3.2003 at about 5.00 PM while he along with other relatives returning from dinner at 5.00 PM in a DCM Van bearing No. AP 12/U-4472, when they reached Jhangirabad, Bandlaguda Village, a Tipper bearing No. AP-9/V- 296 came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against DCM Van and as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The first respondent owner of the Tipper bearing No. AP 9/V-296 and the second respondent insurer of the Tipper field its counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the Tipper bearing No. AP 9/V-296 by its driver 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.30,000/-with interest at 9% 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 failed to award the amount as claimed inspite of the evidence on record and therefore amount awarded deserves to be enhanced. 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 14.03.2003 at about 5.00 PM while the claimant along with other relatives returning from dinner at 5.00 PM in a DCM Van bearing No. AP 12/U-4472, and when they reached Jhangirabad, Bandlaguda Village, a Tipper bearing No. AP-9/V-296 came in an opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against DCM Van and as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence that the claimant treated as in-patient till 15.3.2003 and she sustained closed fracture of right clavicle M/3rd and strapping was done granted Rs. 30,000/- as compensation towards attendant charges, extra nourishment, transportation charges and also towards pain and suffering. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if Rs. 20,000/- is granted in addition to the amount granted by the Tribunal. Thus the total amount of compensation now granted comes to Rs. 50,000/- (30,000 + 20,000 = 50,000/-) 7. 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 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. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- and reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 6% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.2.2011 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261