THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 611 OF 2005 Dated: 30-12-2010 Between: P.Raju Singh ... APPELLANT AND J.Sathyanarayana Reddy and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 611 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 29-03-2004 in O.P No. 1145 of 1999 on the file of the Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The claimant is the appellant herein who filed O.P before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident, that occurred on 31.07.1999 at about 10.30 P.M., while he was proceeding along with his friend on his scooter bearing No. AP 98 9242 from his company to his residence and when they reached Lakshmikala Theatre, Moosapet, lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 4856 came in opposite direction driven by its driver with high speed and dashed against the scooter of the appellant by the impact of which both of them fell down and he received grievous injuries. According to appellant he received a compound fracture of right ulna, fracture to right hand, injuries on stomach, on neck and on all over the body and sustained permanent disability, due to the injuries. The first respondent remained ex parte before the Court below. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed the counter denying all the material allegations. On the strength of the rival pleadings, the learned Judge framed necessary issues as to whether the appellant received injuries in the accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 4856 by its driver and whether the appellant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom and to what relief he is entitled to. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked and Ex.B-1 certified copy of the 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.33,000/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the learned Judge, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has disbelieved the version of the appellant that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month and granted only Rs.1,500/- under the head loss of earnings holding that he is entitled to Rs.1,500/- only since he was in the hospital for more than 20 days. He further contended that though the doctor who was examined as PW 2 deposed that the appellant sustained 40% disability and issued Ex.A-8 disability certificate, the learned Judge has taken the disability at 20% only. The learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable and needs no interference. There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. 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 Learned Judges or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Learned Judges 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.” The claimant is aged about 23 years at the time of accident and was working in a private company. Though no Salary Certificate was marked, the factum of employment is not disputed. Hence considering the circumstance an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month can be notionally fixed as earnings of the appellant. Insofar as disability is concerned, it is claimed by the appellant that he sustained compound fracture to right ulna with loss of skin and soft tissue, and lost muscle in right fore arm, which resulted in gross restriction of flexion of right wrist, loss of supination, mild wasting right hand and partial loss of sensation of right hand and gross loss of hand grip. After the accident, he was admitted in the hospital on 01.08.1999 and discharged on 24.08.1999. In support of his claim, he examined PW2-doctor who issued disability certificate Ex.A-8. The learned Judge observed that the percentage of disability assessed by PW2 is excessive and has taken the disability of the appellant at 20%, which in my view can be taken at 30% having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case. 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 30% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards loss of disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.10,800/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 23 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] is 18. Then, the compensation towards 30% disability comes to Rs.10,800 X 18=Rs.1,94,400/-. In addition, a sum of Rs.15,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs.2,19,400/-. Since the appellant has claimed Rs.1,00,000/ as compensation his claim is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by learned Judge is enhanced from Rs.33,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 30.12.2010 lvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 611 OF 2005 Dated: 30-12-2010 [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129