HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 1451 of 2002 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram in M.O.P.No. 535 of 1999 dated 04.10.2001, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the present appeal has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 8.5.1999, the claimant who is aged about 13 years studying 4th standard, was going on cycle from the left side of the road, when he reached near Nagasapu Veedhi, Vizianagaram, a lorry baring No. AP16 W 4119 came in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn dashed the claimant. As a result of which, the lorry ran over the right leg of the claimant and he sustained injuries all over the body and he was taken to the District Head Quarters Hospital, Vizianagaram where he took treatment and many operations were conducted on the right leg and ultimately his leg was amputated below knee and he became permanently disabled. Hence, the appellant-petitioner filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for suffering permanent disability in the said accident. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. R3 filed counter denying the allegations in the petition regarding rash and negligent driving, the injuries sustained by the claimant and the quantum of compensation. 4. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry baring No. AP16 W 4119 by its driver, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,38,000/- with interest 9% per annum payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, claimant filed this appeal. 5. The appeal against respondents 1 and 2 dismissed for default on 12.8.2008. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have seen that there is no evidence that the third respondent has communicated the dishonour of cheque to the second respondent-owner of the lorry. He also contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 1,38,000/- without taking into consideration of disability, amputation of one leg and the age of the claimant. 7. As seen from the record, the claimant was a boy of 13 years studying 4th standard, who examined as PW-2. PW-1, father of the claimant stated that the claimant was studying and also doing work and earning Rs. 40/- to Rs. 50/- per day. PWs 1 and 2 stated that the right leg of the claimant was amputated below knee. PW-3 the doctor stated that on 8.5.1999 the claimant was admitted in the hospital for crush injury of right leg and his right lower limb was amputated 5” below the knee. He issued Ex. A7 disability certificate assessing the permanent disability at 50%. But the Tribunal taking into consideration of facts and the disability without applying the multiplier method granted Rs. 1,25,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and Rs. 10,000/- was granted towards pain and suffering totalling to Rs. 1,35,000/-. 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. Therefore, as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act Rs. 15,000/- can be taken as notional income of the claimant and if deducted 50% disability the amount comes to Rs. 7,500/- and for the age up to 15 years the relevant multiplier is 15 as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[2], and if applied the correct multiplier the amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1,12,500/- (7,500x15=1,12,500). An amount of Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- is granted towards loss of amenities totaling to Rs. 1,62,500/- (1,12,500+25,000+25,000=1,62,500). In PUSHPABAI VS. RANJIT GINNING AND PRESSING COMPNAY PVT LIMITED[3] the Supreme Court in dealing with res ipsa loquitur, held as under: “The normal rule is that it is for the plaintiff to prove negligence but as in some cases considerable hardship is caused to the plaintiff as the true cause of the accident is not known to him but is solely within the knowledge of the defendant who caused it, the plaintiff can prove the accident but cannot prove how it happened to establish negligence on the part of the defendant. This hardship is sought to be avoided by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur. The general purport of the words res ipsa loquitur is that the accident ‘ speaks for itself’ or tells its own story. There are cases in which the accident speaks for itself so that it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove the accident and nothing more. It will then be for the defendant to establish that the accident happened due to some other cause than his own negligence…. Where the maxim is applied the burden is on the defendant to show either that in fact he was not negligent or that the accident might more probably have happened in a manner which did not connote negligence on his part. For the application of the principle it must be shown that the car was under the management of the defendant and that the accident is such as in ordinary course of things does not happened if those who had the management used proper care.” 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above judgments, and also taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 1,35,000/- to Rs. 1,62,500/-. 10. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company, taking into consideration of decisions of the Apex Court interest awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum. 11. Accordingly, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 24.06.2010 KA [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261 [2] 2009 (6) SCALE 129 [3] AIR 1977 SC 1735