HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 3688 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Claimant is the appellant who filed the appeal challenging the award and decree passed in MVOP No. 366 of 1999 dated 27.05.2003 on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him as against which, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,10,100/-. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 23.2.2000 while the claimant and his relative were traveling in the auto rickshaw from ESI hospital to Nampally, the auto rickshaw driver stopped the auto by the side of the road at SR Nagar cross roads, an Ambassador Car bearing No. AP9 T 1238 driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto, and as a result of which, the claimant fell down and received fracture of right patella and traumatic quadriplegia, fracture of spinal card, injuries on head and injuries on back and other pats of the body and he was treated in Gandhi Hospital. The Police S.R.Nagar P.S. registered a case in Crime No. 407 of 1998 under Section 338 IPC. Prior to the accident the claimant was working as supervisor in Sewing machines company and was earning Rs. 5,000/- per month and hence, he laid a claim for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- . 3. The first respondent- Owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte and the second respondent -Insurance Company filed its counter denying the allegations made in the petition about the accident and the manner in which it is said to have been occurred and there is contributory negligence on the part of the auto driver and that the auto driver was holding a valid driving licence at that time and the amount claimed is highly excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Ambassador car bearing NO. AP9T 1238 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. On behalf of claimant, he himself examined as PW- 1 and Exs. A1 to A-11 were marked and the driver of the auto in which the claimant was traveling was examined as PW-2 and the doctor was examined as PW-3. 6. On consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver and owner of the Ambassador Car of the first respondent caused the accident by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and it was insured with the second respondent and the policy issued by the second respondent to the said vehicle was in force therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. With regard to awarding of compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration of the evidence of PW-3 who assessed the disability at 75% in his certificate Ex. A-7 and the claimant was aged 45 years and earning Rs. 2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 24,000/- per annum and the appropriate multiplier is 10.45, it comes to Rs. 2,50,800/- (24,000x10.45) and 75% of which comes to Rs. 1,88,100/-and granted Rs. 1,000/- towards transport to hospital and Rs. 1,000/- towards extra nourishment, 10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering totaling Rs. 2,10,100/-. Being aggrieved by the same the claimant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal wrongly taken the earnings of the appellant on lower side and granted less compensation so also the Tribunal ought to have taken 100% functional loss of earnings and ought to have computed compensation by taking 100% loss of earnings. 8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and proper? 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the accident car and the first respondent- owner of the car and the second respondent –Insurance Company being insurer, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. As seen from the record, the Tribunal taking into consideration of evidence of PW-3, doctor who assessed the disability at 75% and taking into consideration of his salary at Rs. 2,000/- per month granted compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/-. Coming to his avocation, PW-1 marked the salary certificate said to have been issued by Usha Machine Industries Delhi wherein it is stated that he was being paid a salary of Rs. 5,000/- per month. But the Tribunal wrongly taken the salary of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month. Hence, taking into consideration of his work, I am taking his salary as 3,000/- per month and per year it comes to Rs. 36,000/- (3,000x12=36,000) and if counted the disability of 75% the amount comes to Rs. 27,000/- per year and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SMT SARALA VERMA AND OTHRS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORTION AND ANOTEHR[1] for the age of 45 years, an appropriate multiplier is 14, if applied the comes to Rs. 3,78,000/- (27,000x14= 3,78,000) and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering totaling to Rs. 3,88,000/-, (3,78,000+10,000) which the claimant is entitled for compensation for the injuries suffered. 10. Be that as it may, 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.” 11. In view of the above judgment, and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 2,10,000/- to Rs. 3,88,000/- 12. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is on high side and requested to reduce the same. 13. Taking into consideration catena of Supreme Court Judgments and also the prevailing current rate of interest, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 9% per annum is reduced to 7% per annum. 14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by Claimant is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,10,000/- to Rs. 3,88,000/- and reducing the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 22.07.2010 KA [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121 [2] AIR 1992 SC 1261